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

by **robertdreed** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:23 am

"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?" Once again, I'm painfully aware of the incompleteness of my knowledge about what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. This whole "exploding car" thing...I'm going to have to read up on it. If that is in fact what happened that day- even with fire trucks and ambulances- well boyo, ya got me. But I don't see how a microwave weapon could excite motor vehicles to explode, without there also being associated consequences on the humans in the same vicinity, like burns and internal organ damage.

by **Iroquois** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:34 am

I am certainly way out of my depth with this line of thinking. But, I want to know why the cars exploded, and this seems a reasonable line of inquiry to explain why they may have as a side effect of the triggering mechanism for explosives preplaced in the towers. And, I think that's what were talking about. Like with the beam weapon mentioned in the article I linked to in my previous post, this weapon would have merely triggered pre-placed explosives, not damaged the structure directly. Why do it that way rather than with standard radio receivers on the explosives? I don't know. Maybe it was an added complication to avoid creating too much evidence for controlled demolition. There would be no radio signals to be intercepted and no detonation hardware surviving the collapse to be found by investigators. And, I'm not married to microwaves, or any form of radiation for that matter. One fairly interesting individual I spoke to on a flight to DC said that "frequencies" could be used to pre-detonate explosives. I believed at the time he meant sonic vibrations. That, I thought, made sense. But, how any type of signal could be powerful enough to trigger explosives or ignite fuel tanks at a considerable distance without harming people is, like most of this topic, beyond me.

by **maggrwaggr** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:09 pm

one night when he was working late on his top-secret weapons programs for the military: "Hey, did you know that a human being and a pig explode at the same frequency?" This was probably twenty years ago. They have infrasound weapons that can literally blow people up. And pigs. So why not cars? Especially if the sound starts bouncing around the buildings in a sky-scraper zone of a city. You know how sound can bounce around there. Maybe infrasound was the trigger. We just don't know, and will probably never know, but it would be good to be able to look for evidence that supports or negates either theory.

by **FourthBase** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:11 pm

Whoa, I want to know more, maggrwaggr.

by **thumperton** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:51 pm

I saw something like that on the Discovery Channel, where they made a punch bowl made of glass wobble like jello!

by **banned** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:49 pm

of the Decade Award: "I think something very very strange was going on that day." <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

by **anotherdrew** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:11 am

infrasound as the trigger for the many small bombs deployed around the building (the "popping" ones heard by some firefighters) sounds like a very plausible idea, I don't think the microwave trigger idea would work though, as the walls and steel and such would absorb microwaves readily, they just wouldn't penetrate deeply. So - anyone have any thoughts on the hafnium bomb? granted: 1 - it would have had to have been secretly developed, with the little info that came out about it either a leak that got controled fairly quickly, or one of the first intentional step by step disclosures (just enough to make some folks/potential advesaries start to think: maybe that already have this... ). If it's truely possible, it doesn't seem like a super-difficult thing to develop, and remember those mysterious explosions in the australian outback in the late '90s? 2 - one would need to accept that controled demolition happened. Remember, a bush owned the company that ran security. People who work there said there WAS a time, only a few weeks before, when unknown workers were seen carring stuff in and out on weekends, I think. 3 - given the way the top spire started falling before anythign else, and that it was directly supported by the tops of the main internal supports, strongly suggests that the main internal supports gave way first, not that floors started pancaking on their own. 4 - there would have been a massive but highly contained explosion to take out the base supports first. This would have had to happen somewhere in the basement. A single worker who was in the deepest part of the basement made it up and out, but passed through an area of intense destruction, just a short time before the building collapsed. Anyway - I've seen all those items on seemingly well connected web-sites, I don't have all the refs handy, but I would probably find it all on one of the co-op research or some other site. I'm not sure it needs to have been hafnium either, could have just been a SADM nuke, like they had in the early 60s. Anyway cutting those main suports at the base would have been one hell of a demolition job, but it seems like what they did. The "best method" to demo these buildings was probably designed into the buildings right from the get-go. Estimates of controled de-contruction costs were like 10 times more than it cost to build them in the first place. Sooner or later they had to come down, maybe not for another 100 or more years tho... Well, the owner got to collect on his recently expanded insurance policy at least. ( <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/w54.htm">www.globalsecurity.org/wm...ms/w54.htm</a> W54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) In the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. developed lightweight nuclear devices to use in the interest of U.S. national security. The Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) was a Navy and Marines project that was demonstrated as feasible in the mid-to-late 1960s, but was never used. The project, which involved a small nuclear weapon, was designed to allow one individual to parachute from any type of aircraft carrying the weapon package that would be placed in a harbor or other strategic location that could be accessed from the sea. Another parachutist without a weapon package would follow the first parachutist to provide support as needed. The two-man team would place the weapon package in an acceptable location, set the timer, and swim out into the ocean where they would be retrieved by a submarine or other high-speed water craft. The parachute jumps and the retrieval procedures were practiced extensively. While the procedures were practiced extensively, SADM was never used. These types of weapons are no longer in the stockpile. <sure they aren't <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> > )

by **robertdreed** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:23 am

The new technologies get discussed by Willam Arkin of the much-dreaded MSM outlet The Washington Post- <a href="http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/10/busier_than_par.html">blogs.washingtonpost.com/...n_par.html</a>

by **Ferry Fey** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:42 am

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."  As a side note, people DO say things like that sometimes. It's been a family joke for almost 20 years, teasing my little sister about the time she called Dad and absent-mindedly said who was calling giving her full name. There are plenty of reasons to doubt the official stories of Flight 93, but Mark giving his full name to his mom is not in the least beyond the bounds of possibility.

by **Qutb** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:37 am

Anotherdew, thanks for the story on the SADM. That was new to me. I'm fairly satisifed with the "pancake theory" - at least I don't view it as impossible - but I find it interesting that Sibel Edmonds said the health problems of the rescue workers etc (including her own) resembled radiation sickness. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Remember, a bush owned the company that ran security<hr></blockquote> In "Loose Change", I think they say Marvin was the "head" of the company, which isn't true. He was never the exclusive owner of it either, but he was apparently a "significant shareholder" and a member of the board of directors of Stratesec/Securacom from 1993 to fiscal year 2000. I don't know if he still owned shares in the company on 9/11 2001, but either way it's hardly a smoking gun for controlled demolition. See <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm" target="top">here</a>. More: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Marvin Bush joined Securacom when it was capitalized by the Kuwait-American Corporation, a private investment firm in D.C. that was the security company's major investor, sometimes holding a controlling interest. Marvin Bush has not responded to telephone calls and e-mails for comment. KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec. The managing director at KuwAm, Wirt D. Walker III, was also a principal at Stratesec, and Walker, Marvin Bush and al Sabah are listed in SEC filings as significant shareholders in both companies during that period. Marvin Bush's last year on the board at Stratesec coincided with his first year on the board of HCC Insurance, formerly Houston Casualty Co., one of the insurance carriers for the WTC. He left the HCC board in November 2002.<hr></blockquote> I agree with Ferry Fey on "this is Mark Bingham". In a situation like that, I find it entirely plausible that someone could say that to his mother. Infinitely more plausible than faked phonecalls, anyway. In addition, I believe Mark Bingham said that the hijackers had a bomb, which isn't consistent with the "official story" of boxcutter-wielding hijackers. If they faked the phonecalls, you'd think they'd stick to their own version of events. On edit: Some <a href="http://www.business.com/directory/real_estate_and_construction/property_management/safety_and_security/stratesec_incorporated/profile/" target="top">info</a> on Stratesec: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Stratesec Incorporated 14360 Sullyfield Circle SUITE C Chantilly, VIRGINIA 20151 +1 703 961-5683 +1 703 631-5163 Stratesec Incorporated. The Group's principal activity is to provide comprehensive technology based security solutions to large and medium sized commercial and government facilities. The services include consulting and planning, engineering and design, systems integration and maintenance and technical support. The Group provides services to airports, hospitals, prisons, corporations, utilities, universities and government facilities. The customers of the Group include Dallas Fort Worth Airport, EDS, Wachovia Bank, MCI WorldCom, Inc, Alltel Corporation, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force and the department of justice. Stratesec Incorporated People: Chairman - Wirt D. Walker III President, Chief Executive & Chief Financial Officer - Barry W. McDaniel Secretary - Nassima Briggs <hr></blockquote> Stratesec is a part of the military-government-corporate complex, the type of company that is dependent on its connections to people like Marvin and Wirt D. Walker III and their Ivy League buddy network in government and business. IF the WTC was demolished with explosives, I agree that they would be a suspect. <a href="http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/linkscopy/Stratesec.html" target="top">Dave McGowen</a> on Stratesec. <a href="http://www.populist.com/03.07.burns.html" target="top">More</a> from The Progressive Populist: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In spring 1999, Marvin Pierce Bush, youngest brother of George W. Bush, was a nominee for the boards of directors of two companies, both with a significant interest in security at the World Trade Center. One was HCC Insurance, formerly Houston Casualty Company, a giant holding company and major insurance carrier for the center. The other was a security company named Stratesec, one of the center's numerous security contractors. Bush, however, did not list his directorship at Stratesec on the proxy statement for HCC, and did not list his connections with HCC on the proxy statement for Stratesec. According to officials at the Securities and Exchange Commission and other experts, listing other directorships is required, in proxy statements, for directors and officers of public companies. Stratesec was eventually excused from the World Trade Center project. HCC sustained significant losses when the Center collapsed after the attacks of 9/11, withdrawing from workers compensation as a result. Stratesec, formerly called Securacom but forced to change its name after some bad-blood litigation with another security company, filed its SEC proxy statement on April 23, 1999. The shareholders met on May 25, 1999, in a Watergate office suite, leased by the Saudi Arabian government, to elect seven members including Bush, who had been on the board since 1993. Bush was also on the company's audit and compensation committees. A principal in the company, Wirt D. Walker III, is also a Bush relative. HCC Insurance filed its proxy statement on April 28, 1999, for the shareholders meeting in Houston on May 20, 1999. It was Bush's entrance on HCC's 13-member board. He had been on the board of directors at Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. since 1998, appointed by HCC's CEO and chairman of the board, Stephen Way, a longtime friend. The Stratesec proxy also omitted the Fresh Del Monte Produce (FDP) connections. By law, proxy statements filed with the SEC for publicly traded companies list, along with other required information, the age, credentials and business connections of directors and nominees. Bush's information disclosed to Stratesec's shareholders listed his ongoing directorship at Stratesec, his previous experience at investment firms, his partnership at his own company; Winston Partners, a private investment firm in northern Virginia; and his directorship at Kerrco, an oil and gas company. Only his directorships at HCC and Fresh Del Monte, where he was also on the Audit and Compensation committees, were omitted. (See www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1037453 ... 001383.txt.) The information disclosed to HCC's shareholders listed Bush's positions at Winston Partners and Fresh Del Monte, his membership on the Board of Trustees of the George Bush Presidential Library and on the Board of Managers at the University of Virginia. Only Stratesec and Kerrco were omitted. (www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/888919/ ... 016818.txt.) Bush left Stratesec's board within the year. He was reelected to the HCC board for the next two years, again omitting the Stratesec connection. (...) According to Jeff Gallup, formerly with Stratesec's West Coast branch and now at Landtek, Inc., Stratesec installed the initial security description at the Center. Gallup speaks with close knowledge of the site. Landtek was one of the Center's prime contractors along with EJ Electric;- which took over Stratesec's work -- and "I was intimately involved [with WTC security], up to the day the FBI left my office with all the contents" of the WTC visitors database - three quarters of a million visitors' badges. Gallup declines to say why Stratesec was excused from the project. But another former Stratesec executive, who declines to be named, links the change to the company's financial problems. Signs of those problems abounded long before its delisting on the American Stock Exchange in October 2002. Some of the problems appear - from off-the-record comments by former personnel - to have been managerial style, or personality differences. Previous management was "eased out," as Gallup puts it, for the new management, including Bush, who came in with a massive infusion of capital from the Kuwait-American Corporation, in 1992. Wirt Walker, "of the George Herbert Walker family name," according to the former executive, was also a principal in KuwAm. Stratesec left a trail of small tax liens against it in California, Texas, and Florida, and another paper trail of small court judgments for unpaid vendors. It has announced plans to negotiate its federal tax bill with the IRS and its state taxes with the Commonwealth of Virginia, to cut its taxes by nine-tenths. The company received ample funding through the 1990s, with several large contracts, including the WTC, Dulles and Reagan National airports; capital infusions from two other companies following KuwAm; and millions through its 1997 IPO. A partial list of funds investing in Stratesec while Bush was on board includes the Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Capital Appreciation Fund, the Munder Funds, the Fidelity Adviser Series, the Putnam Capital Appreciation Trust, and several funds at John Hancock.<hr></blockquote> Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=qutb>Qutb</A> at: 10/26/05 8:17 am

by **nomo** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:43 pm

Of all the possible explanations I prefer the "dust and ash" explanation best if only because I've seen it happen. Drivers in the dust bowl states are advised not to drive in dust storms for this reason. If the engine was idling, the incredible amount of soot and ash in the air that was generated by the buildings dropping would clog the radiator grill, which would cause the engine to overheat pretty quickly. The ash would also clog the air cleaner, causing the engine to run very lean (too much fuel). This would cause pre-detonation, which would "backfire" into the carburetor through the intake valve, which would cause the fuel to ignite and that's what caused the fires. -- When all else fails... panic.

by **Iroquois** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:33 pm

I like this theory for the fact that it does not require anything other than the dust that we know is there regardless of the mechanism that brought down the towers, but I have a few problems with it: 1.) What is the realistic likelyhood of a car idling in an extremely dusty environment actually catching fire rather than stalling? I've been in some very dusty environments with vehicles running very hard (like the SCCA performance rally in Atlanta, Michigan) and have never seen this happen (though I did see stalling), so I'm tempted to think it is somewhat rare. According to the fire patrolman, several vehicles very close in both time and proximity exploded. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>All of a sudden cars were blowing up everywhere. <hr></blockquote> Many were described as parked cars. It would seem unlikely that so many vehicles were left idling and even more unlikely that this chain of events happened to so many in such a small area in such a small time frame. 2.) Can this occur in diesel engines, which most emergency vehicles are. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Over 95 percent of all emergency vehicles in use today-fire engines, rescue squads and ambulances --- are powered by diesel engines...<hr></blockquote> from <a href="http://www.dieselforum.org/enews/allen_remarks.html">www.dieselforum.org/enews...marks.html</a> The patrolman said that several emergency vehicles did explode. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Lots of the cars and fire engines and ambulances parked along West HW and Vesey and Liberty exploded.<hr></blockquote> Sorry, I know little more about combustion engines than I do about uber-tech beam weapons. This is not at all a rhetorical question. 3.) In any of these cases, it sounds from your description that the fire starts in the carburetor. Is that likely to result in an actual fuel tank explosion?. I thought fuel tanks generally only explode in movies and Pintos.

by **maggrwaggr** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:05 am

how many cars these days have carbeurators? Most are fuel injected now.

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

cars exploding at the WTC

Re: cars exploding at the WTC

Well, like my Dad told me --

Re: Well, like my Dad told me --

Re: Well, like my Dad told me --

mags, you win the Understatement...

what the hell...

weird weaponry

"This is Mark Bingham"

Re: what the hell...

Dust and ashes?

Re: Dust and ashes?

interesting, but ...

Who is online