Reply With Quote
I love the 9-11 truthers calling out the "no-plane shills."
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." Su iously, 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 Su ious 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 su ious as well, and worthy of further investigation.
Written by Rolf Lindgren and Dr. Kevin Barrett
www.barrettforcongress.us
I love the 9-11 truthers calling out the "no-plane shills."
so many threads.......and zero conclusions.
Here's the WTC complex.
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.
Uh, dumbass -- WTC 1 had already been burning for over an hour.Assuming that debris from building collapses cause fires, WTC 1 should have caught on fire
The smoke from WTC 6 obscured explosions on the lower floors of WTC 1, and obscured the south face of WTC 7.
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.
When your first sentence is a complete crock of : "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.
Oh please God. If you have any mercy, let the server crash and all these threads disappear to never appear again..........amen
"We're getting ready to PULL building 6!"
Pulling WTC 6
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ll+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.
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.
you're pulling my leg!
You're lying!
I believe the best explanation is that the World Trade Center never actually existed.
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?
I'm not part of the plot. That's the way I found the video on youtube.
so...the truthers will dissemble on this for a year or two, and then, what, WTC 5?
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".
WTC 5 seems to be another case of arson, used as a smokescreen for explosions in WTC 7 and the North tower.
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.
More unsubstantiated nonsense. Airplane debris fell on 5 from the WTC 2 strike.
What about WTC 4?
3?
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.
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
