Arson in WTC 6

[Galileo]

Arson in WTC 6



By Rolf Lindgren and Dr. Kevin Barrett, http://www.barrettforcongress.us



9/11 skeptics harp on the obvious controlled demolition of Word Trade Center Building 7, the biggest smoking gun of 9/11. And they often discuss the only slightly less obvious demolitions of the Twin Towers. But they rarely discuss evidence for bombs and arson in other buildings of the World Trade Center complex.



According to the testimony of John Peruggia:

"I saw 6 World Trade Center fully involved with fire."
 Peruggia describes a fire after the South Tower, WTC 2, falls at 9:59 a.m., but before the North Tower, WTC 1 falls at 10:28 a.m. The fire in WTC 6 was ostensibly started by flying debris from WTC 2. Based on Peruggia’s timeline, WTC 6 was "fully involved with fire" by the midway point between the Twin Tower collapses. So WTC 6 was "fully involved with fire" by 10:15 AM. [Note to no-plane shills, on page 6, Peruggia describes airplane parts he sees from the first plane crash.]





Also testifying about fire, smoke, and explosions in WTC 6 is EMP Patricia Ondrovic. She describes fleeing immediately after the collapse of WTC 2 and running into a building on Vesey Street (WTC-6) where "there was smoke, there was debris, there was everything flying around" and where "stuff's blowing up." Suspiciously, her testimony is redacted on pages 9, 12, and 13.





Despite the censorship of the official oral history, you can get her full story here about the explosions in WTC-6 she witnessed as she was fleeing the destruction of the first collapsing Tower: "I tried to run into the lobby of 6 World Trade, but there were federal police -- maybe 4 to 6 of them -- standing in the open doorways. As I tried to run in, they wouldn't let me, waving me out, telling me 'you can't come in here, keep running.' As I turned to start running west again, I saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that 'chase' in pattern."



WTC 6 was about 400 feet from WTC 2 and mostly screened by WTC 1. It supposedly caught fire from the flying debris. Yet WTC 1, which is only a little over 100 feet away from WTC 2 and not screened, did not catch on fire from flying debris. The only fires in WTC 1 were above the 95th floor of where the plane hit.



We know the intensity of the flying debris decreases with the inverse cube of the distance, so the blast that hit WTC 1 was 50 times greater than the blast that hit WTC 6, when WTC 2 fell.




This chart shows how little of WTC 6 was exposed to flying debris from WTC 2.





Chart of locations of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 6



Assuming that debris from building collapses cause fires, WTC 1 should have caught on fire, and WTC 6 should not have caught on fire. If WTC 6 did catch on fire, only a small part of it should have been in flames by 10:15.



The eyewitnesses to arson and/or explosives in WTC 6 complement the eyewitnesses of explosives in WTC 7 (Barry Jennings and Michael Hess) and WTC 1 (William Rodriguez and others).

Other Suspicious WTC 6 Facts





* No steel or rubble from WTC 6 was preserved for scientific analysis.



* NIST has not done a study of WTC 6.



The arson hypothesis for WTC 6 has been tested for accuracy at the JREF "debunker" forums:



Arson in WTC 6?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117389



The JREFers are the most able and informed "debunkers" (not saying much), yet even the JREF army of debunkers could not muster a single good rebuttal of the arson in WTC 6 hypothesis.



Because WTC 6 was on fire, it provided a smokescreen for other events on 9/11. The smoke from WTC 6 obscured explosions on the lower floors of WTC 1, and obscured the south face of WTC 7.



The fires in WTC 5 are suspicious as well, and worthy of further investigation.



Written by Rolf Lindgren and Dr. Kevin Barrett



www.barrettforcongress.us

[FromWayDowntown]

I love the 9-11 truthers calling out the "no-plane shills."

[clambake]

so many threads.......and zero conclusions.

[ChumpDumper]

Here's the WTC complex.

http://www.stagedterror.com/images/WTC%20Complex.jpg

Seeing as WTC 7, further away and more shielded, received quite a bit of debris from the collapse of WTC2 -- it's not difficult to conclude that WTC 6 received much more debris that could indeed start a fire.
CsY-QAFbzY4


Assuming that debris from building collapses cause fires, WTC 1 should have caught on fireUh, dumbass -- WTC 1 had already been burning for over an hour.


The smoke from WTC 6 obscured explosions on the lower floors of WTC 1, and obscured the south face of WTC 7. :lmao

Tower 1 stood for only 24 minutes after the collapse of tower 2. Where is your evidence that any fire started in 6 was big enough to obscure anything?

As for 7, dozens of firefighters have testified to the south face damage -- more than enough to corroborate the photographic evidence that does exist and you haven't bothered to look up.

[TeyshaBlue]

When your first sentence is a complete crock of shit: "9/11 skeptics harp on the obvious controlled demolition of Word [sic]Trade Center Building 7...." then you know the rest ain't worth the air it's written on.:lol

[xrayzebra]

Oh please God. If you have any mercy, let the server crash and all these threads disappear to never appear again..........amen

[Galileo]

"We're getting ready to PULL building 6!"

Pulling WTC 6

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6227966981786417824&ei=V5u0SLHtFo32-gHdrsCHDQ&q=pull+wtc+6&hl=en

[FromWayDowntown]

"We're getting ready to PULL building 6!"

Pulling WTC 6

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6227966981786417824&ei=V5u0SLHtFo32-gHdrsCHDQ&q=pull+wtc+6&hl=en

Eureka! An unidentified voice answering a cell phone in a video in which that conversation is given absolutely no context at all is the exact sort of concrete proof that I've been waiting for to finally come over to the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy of such massive proportions that none of its participants is willing to talk, despite the assurance of mega millions for exposing the greatest fraud in the history of mankind.

[ChumpDumper]

You left out the part where they tell you what "pulling" means in demolition.

1uxlrcQL5Dk

Why did you and the poster of that video leave off the most important 10 seconds? What are you hiding?

You constantly resort to lies and distortions. The real Galileo never did. You are a fraud.

[FromWayDowntown]

You left out the part where they tell you what "pulling" means in demolition.

Why did you and the poster of that video leave off the most important 10 seconds? What are you hiding?

You constantly resort to lies and distortions. The real Galileo never did. You are a fraud.

No way, man!! You just can't see the conspiracy here. I mean, really -- that guy's voice on the cell phone proves everything conclusively. If you don't see that, well, then I feel very, very, very, very, very, very, very sorry for you.

I have to leave this site now; I fear that the goverment might come after me now that I know the secret.

[Galileo]

you're pulling my leg!

[ChumpDumper]

You're lying!

[Extra Stout]

I love the 9-11 truthers calling out the "no-plane shills."
I believe the best explanation is that the World Trade Center never actually existed.

[Galileo]

You're lying!

you're pulling my chain!

[ChumpDumper]

you're pulling my chain!Do you have any explanation why you left out the part of the video where they say what pulling means in demolition?

[Galileo]

Do you have any explanation why you left out the part of the video where they say what pulling means in demolition?

I'm not part of the plot. That's the way I found the video on youtube.

[PixelPusher]

so...the truthers will dissemble on this for a year or two, and then, what, WTC 5?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not part of the plot. That's the way I found the video on youtube.So since you have been shown the full footage, you now agree that "pull" as a demolition term means pulling with cables?

Yes or no.

[Galileo]

So since you have been shown the full footage, you now agree that "pull" as a demolition term means pulling with cables?

Yes or no.

It doesn't matter what I think. It matters how Silverstein would use the term. Silverstein is not in the demolitions industry, so he would be unfamiliar with cables, and use the term more generally "to demolish".

[Galileo]

so...the truthers will dissemble on this for a year or two, and then, what, WTC 5?

WTC 5 seems to be another case of arson, used as a smokescreen for explosions in WTC 7 and the North tower.

[ChumpDumper]

It doesn't matter what I think. It matters how Silverstein would use the term. Silverstein is not in the demolitions industry, so he would be unfamiliar with cables, and use the term more generally "to demolish".But if the evil Jew arranged and ordered the demolition of WTC 7, he would have to be very familiar with the demolitions industry. You can't have it both ways.

No one has ever used that term more generally to mean "to demolish." Ever.

Many, many people have used that term to generally describe abandonment of an effort, as in the effort to fight fires in WTC 7.

You have failed once more.

[ChumpDumper]

WTC 5 seems to be another case of arson, used as a smokescreen for explosions in WTC 7 and the North tower.More unsubstantiated nonsense. Airplane debris fell on 5 from the WTC 2 strike.

What about WTC 4?

3?

[Galileo]

But if the evil Jew arranged and ordered the demolition of WTC 7, he would have to be very familiar with the demolitions industry. You can't have it both ways.

No one has ever used that term more generally to mean "to demolish." Ever.

Many, many people have used that term to generally describe abandonment of an effort, as in the effort to fight fires in WTC 7.

You have failed once more.

How do you know he's Jewish? Are you one of those types that keeps track of things like that?

[ChumpDumper]

How do you know he's Jewish? Are you one of those types that keeps track of things like that?Why are you trying to change the subject?

If he arranged and ordered the demolition of WTC 7, he would have more than cursory knowledge of demolition terms, and there is no way such an evil genius would admit to intentionally demolishing a building when he was in court trying to collect insurance on 7 for a terrorist attack.

You are just stupid.

[ChumpDumper]

And why would any evil genius choose to start a fire in the ceiling of a public lobby with some kind of series of flash charges? Was there no other place or method available to start a fire in a 537,693 square-foot building?

[Galileo]

And why would any evil genius choose to start a fire in the ceiling of a public lobby with some kind of series of flash charges? Was there no other place or method available to start a fire in a 537,693 square-foot building?

evil terrorists.

[ChumpDumper]

evil terrorists.So this is the part where you start babbling non sequiturs in a lame attempt to avoid answering questions that will expose you as the liar you are.

It's not like we haven't seen that before.

[Galileo]

EMERGENCY WARNING FOR OFFICE WORKERS (NIST WTC7)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7U22m9xLrQ&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/blog

[ChumpDumper]

So this is the part where you start babbling non sequiturs in a lame attempt to avoid answering questions that will expose you as the liar you are.

It's not like we haven't seen that before.

[Galileo]

The government is too incompetent to do valid scientific work. Only a socialist would think otherwise.

[ChumpDumper]

And again.
So this is the part where you start babbling non sequiturs in a lame attempt to avoid answering questions that will expose you as the liar you are.

It's not like we haven't seen that before.

[IceColdBrewski]

The government is too incompetent to do valid scientific work.

Yet for some reason, you think it's competent enough to pull off something as monumental as 9-11. You're talking in circles now.

[Galileo]

Yet for some reason, you think it's competent enough to pull off something as monumental as 9-11. You're talking in circles now.

The 9/11 operation wasn't all that complicated, especially when the mass media gives you air cover.

[ChumpDumper]

The 9/11 operation wasn't all that complicated, especially when the mass media gives you air cover.Since it wasn't all that complicated, please explain the entire operation in detail.

I'll bump the appropriate thread so you can respond there.

[smeagol]

Since it wasn't all that complicated, please explain the entire operation in detail.

I'll bump the appropriate thread so you can respond there.

Galileo: Answer the fucking question.

All you stupid truthers fail to come up with an explanation of what really happened the morning of September 11, 2001. Who the fuck is behind 9/11 and why did they do it.

Until you answer that question, your posts are worthless.

[Galileo]

Since it wasn't all that complicated, please explain the entire operation in detail.

I'll bump the appropriate thread so you can respond there.

I've already done this for you. The operation had three easy steps:

1) schedule 29 military war games between 8 and 10 AM on 9/11.

2) line the core of the WTC towers with explosives, utilizing the elevator shafts.

3) have the CIA induce 19 arabs to get on an airplane.

[ChumpDumper]

Since it wasn't all that complicated, please explain the entire operation in detail.

[ChumpDumper]

1) schedule 29 military war games between 8 and 10 AM on 9/11.
The military exercises actually decreased response times in many cases. Any games involving hijacked planes were scheduled later in the day.


2) line the core of the WTC towers with explosives, utilizing the elevator shafts.Nevermind that there were about 100 elevator mechanics in the towers every day, or the other hundreds of maintenance workers there day and night.


3) have the CIA induce 19 arabs to get on an airplane.With what? The promise of death in service to the USA?

Please fully explain how each of your three parts of the operation were pulled off. And explain WTC 7 and the Pentagon and Shanksville while you are at it.

[Nbadan]

The military exercises actually decreased response times in many cases. Any games involving hijacked planes were scheduled later in the day.

Source? Planes were delayed because no-one knew if the attack was real or if they were part of Cheney's domestic war games....planes were dispatched out to sea, that's why it took them so long to protect NY airspace....

[Nbadan]

Nevermind that there were about 100 elevator mechanics in the towers every day, or the other hundreds of maintenance workers there day and night.

Who said that any bombs were in the elevator shafts? and why does Chumpy keep making irrelevant points?

[Nbadan]

With what? The promise of death in service to the USA?

Please fully explain how each of your three parts of the operation were pulled off. And explain WTC 7 and the Pentagon and Shanksville while you are at it.

Explain how WTC7 collapsed on its footprint if it collapsed because one side of the building had been compromised (like you contend) or the 'magic-pillar' explanation in the current joke NIST report...

[ChumpDumper]

Who said that any bombs were in the elevator shafts? and why does Chumpy keep making irrelevant points?
2) line the core of the WTC towers with explosives, utilizing the elevator shafts.

[ChumpDumper]

Explain how WTC7 collapsed on its footprint if it collapsed because one side of the building had been compromised (like you contend) or the 'magic-pillar' explanation in the current joke NIST report...It didn't collapse in its own footprint. As I showed you in the other thread, it heavily damaged buildings north and west of it.

But you ran away from that thread, brave Sir Robin.

[ChumpDumper]

Source? Planes were delayed because no-one knew if the attack was real or if they were part of Cheney's domestic war games....planes were dispatched out to sea, that's why it took them so long to protect NY airspace....Source?

I'll post mine when I get back tonight. It was part of the commission testimony.

[Nbadan]

2) line the core of the WTC towers with explosives, utilizing the elevator shafts.

Should I create a shill that posts ridiculous 911-faither claims? Will that make you feel better?

[ChumpDumper]

Should I create a shill that posts ridiculous 911-faither claims? Will that make you feel better?
:lmao You think that I am Galileo?

Damn, you are a conspiracy nut!

[Galileo]

Should I create a shill that posts ridiculous 911-faither claims? Will that make you feel better?

Gordon Ross, mechanical engineer, has studied the collapse of the Twin towers. He says that the explosives were placed next to core columns that were accessed by the elevator shafts, a place not frequented by maintanance.

[ChumpDumper]

Gordon Ross, mechanical engineer, has studied the collapse of the Twin towers. He says that the explosives were placed next to core columns that were accessed by the elevator shafts, a place not frequented by maintanance.Except for the hundred or so elevator mechanics.

[Galileo]

Barrett Campaign: Will "Dial 911" to 30,000+ voters
8/29/2008

Contact:
Dr. Kevin Barrett; 608-583-2132,
[email protected]

Rolf Lindgren; 608-279-5889,
[email protected]

Dr. Kevin Barrett, the peace and truth candidate for Congress in Wisconsin's 3rd District, has announced that he will be robo-calling more than 30,000 registered 3rd District voters next Tuesday, September 2nd to ask for their votes in the September 9th primary and to remind them that 9/11 was an inside job.

Barrett's pre-recorded phone message slams politicians and features Barrett's trademark absurdist, self-effacing humor.

Barrett test-marketed the call to a number of voters, one of whom immediately donated $500 to his campaign, while another responded "politics couldn't be more fun!" Based on the test-marketing sample, Barrett said he expects to garner a few thousand dollars, a few thousand votes, and "only a couple of dozen death threats" from the calls. "That's a pretty good ratio of votes to death threats," Barrett said. "So I decided to go ahead and place the calls. It seems like a sound, strategic political decision."

Dink Wheedlesharp, a chain-smoking paper-clip wholesaler from West Lima, was one of the test marketing subjects who did not appreciate the call. "If one more of those bleepity-bleep politicians calls me up to tell me that 9/11 was an inside job, I'm heading straight to Washington D.C. to rip his lungs out," Wheedlesharp expostulated. "The nerve of some people! Calling me in the privacy of my own home to interrupt my dinner and tell me that 9/11 was an inside job! What an insult to my intelligence! I mean, I KNEW the first time I saw it that skyscrapers don't fall down like that!"

Barrett apologized to Wheedlesharp and others who don't like getting robo-calls from politicians, and promised that if they send him to Washington he'll stop calling them. "Heck, I might even support legislation banning robo-calls from politicians," Barrett said. "In fact, I think I'll record a robo-call right now telling voters if they vote for me I'll support anti-robo-call legislation."

Rolf Lindgren, Barrett's campaign manager, said he hoped voters had a sense of humor.

Robo-call #1 (to be placed Tuesday, September 2nd to at least 15,000 households with 2 or more voters): http://www.radiodujour.com/people/barrett_kevin/mp3/phone_ad_one.mp3

Robo-call #2 (to be placed Monday, September 8th -- the eve of the primary -- to at least 15,000 households with 2 or more voters) :http://www.radiodujour.com/people/barrett_kevin/mp3/phone_ad_two.mp3




http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=134642



http://www.barrettforcongress.us/

[ChumpDumper]

Quit spamming the forum with press releases from a nutjob who has no chance of being elected.

[Galileo]

Quit spamming the forum with press releases from a nutjob who has no chance of being elected.

'At least he's not boring'
By Patrick Marley
Friday, Aug 29 2008, 11:06 AM
Madison -- As part of his unusual campaign for Congress, Libertarian Kevin Barrett is planning to robo-call 30,000 people to talk about how annoying robo-calls are.



While he's at it, he's asking for their vote in the Sept. 9 primary. And he's reminding them he believes the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were orchestrated by the U.S. government.

"I've had it up to here with the boring, cowardly, mealy mouthed, lying scalawags that call themselves politicians," Barrett says in the calls that will go out Tuesday. "If they call me one more time, I'm going...to tell them: 'You dirty, lying, thieving jackals of Washington, D.C., wasted $5 trillion on that idiotic war in Iraq and you destroyed our economy.'"



He asks people to visit FireCongress.org, a site that urges people to vote against incumbents.



Barrett also claims 9/11 was an inside job. Barrett was enmeshed in controversy when he taught at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for his views on those terrorist attacks.

Barrett slips into a falsetto voice during the recording so he can sound like a second person urging them to vote for Barrett. The call ends with: "At least he's not boring."



In a second round of calls that will go out Sept. 8, the day before the primary, Barrett accuses U.S. Rep. Ron Kind (D-La Crosse) of lying about his views on the war, saying Kind is "100% pro war."



Barrett faces fellow Libertarian Ben Olson III in the primary. The winner will face Kind and Republican Paul Stark, an Eau Claire home builder, in the Nov. 4 general election for the western Wisconsin district.



Filed under: Elections

http://blogs.jsonline.com/allpoliticswatch/archive/2008/08/29/at-least-he-s-not-boring.aspx

[ChumpDumper]

He is very boring.

[Galileo]

He is very boring.

so you'd rather talk about WTC 6? That was arson!

[ChumpDumper]

so you'd rather talk about WTC 6?You started the topic, dumbass.
That was arson!Where is your proof?

[RandomGuy]

He is very boring.

He is kinda like shampoo directions.

"State 9-11 was an inside job, lather, rinse, repeat"

[Booharv]

Wow, Chumpdumper is schooling that dude.

[TeyshaBlue]

Wow, Chumpdumper is schooling that dude.

Like it takes a brain surgeon to school Galileo.:sleep:lol

[Galileo]

Like it takes a brain surgeon to school Galileo.:sleep:lol

GALILEO is INVINCIBLE!

[smeagol]

Galileo is losing (it)

[Nbadan]

It didn't collapse in its own footprint. As I showed you in the other thread, it heavily damaged buildings north and west of it.

But you ran away from that thread, brave Sir Robin.

So it toppled over like a tree cut at its base? No. Case closed.

[ChumpDumper]

So it toppled over like a tree cut at its base? No. Case closed.Dan, when are you going to admit that you lied when you said none of the buildings next to WTC received no damage from it when it collapsed?

[ChumpDumper]

The military exercises actually decreased response times in many cases. Any games involving hijacked planes were scheduled later in the day.
Source? Planes were delayed because no-one knew if the attack was real or if they were part of Cheney's domestic war games....planes were dispatched out to sea, that's why it took them so long to protect NY airspace....Here is an exchange between Congressman Tim Roemer and Air Force General and NORAD commander Ralph E. Eberhart:

MR. ROEMER: General Eberhart, a question about our training posture on the day of 9/11. On page five of our Staff Statement, the FAA says at 8:38 in the morning, "Hi, Boston Center, TMU, we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York and we need you guys to -- we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there. Help us out." NEADS says, "Is this real world or an exercise?"

My question is, you were postured for an exercise against the former Soviet Union. Did that help or hurt? Did that help in terms of were more people prepared? Did you have more people ready? Were more fighters fueled with more fuel? Or did this hurt in terms of people thinking, "No, there's no possibility that this is real world; we're engaged in an exercise," and delay things? Or did it have both impacts?

GEN. EBERHART: Sir, my belief is that it helped because of the manning, because of the focus, because the crews -- they have to be airborne in 15 minutes. And that morning, because of the exercise, they were airborne in six or eight minutes. And so I believe that focus helped.

The situation that you're referring to, I think, at most cost us 30 seconds -- 30 seconds.

MR. ROEMER: That's what we have recorded. I just wondered if there was more of that down the line.

GEN. EBERHART: No, it became painfully clear, Commissioner, that this was not an exercise.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing12/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-06-17.htm

Now in turn I would like the source for your contentions listed above, dan. I certainly agree that planes were sent over the ocean, but that was the result of a difference in plotting the location of aircraft between military and civilian aviation.

Sorry I took so long to dig up the specific hearing, but I do believe follow-through is important. Wouldn't you agree?

[efrem1]

Is this the companion thread to Jack Chick's contention that catholics assasinated Lincoln?