Arson in WTC 6?

[Dave Rogers]

You forgot about the witness who saw explosions int the lobby. That's not consistent with your "possibilities".

It's consistent with two witnesses getting slightly confused about the sequence of events in their recollections. Any trial lawyer will tell you that there's nothing unusual about that.

Dave

 

[CHF]

This is evidence that either Al Quada started WTC 6 on fire, or it was an inside job.

If Chewbaka lives on Endor you must acquit!

 

[Galileo]

It's consistent with two witnesses getting slightly confused about the sequence of events in their recollections. Any trial lawyer will tell you that there's nothing unusual about that.

Dave

That's wrong with Perguggia. He was not in the area after WTC 1 collapsed.

 

[John Blonn]

Hm, I dunno, you got me Galileo.

9/11 was an inside job!

 

[~enigma~]

If Chewbaka lives on Endor you must acquit!

 

[1337m4n]

There are no pictures of a fire in WTC 6. Obviously that means that it did not exist. RedIbis would agree with me; just ask him.

 

[1337m4n]

You forgot about the witness who saw explosions int the lobby. That's not consistent with your "possibilities".

Wrong. She did not see "explosions". She saw tiny flashes of light. KillClown TOLD her that they were explosions.

Dave Rogers' possibilities stand.

If you think otherwise it is up to YOU to provide proof that there were indeed "explosions".

 

[1337m4n]

He says he saw 6 fully involved just before 1 collapsed, but admits himself that he's unsure of his recollection. He could easily have confused the sequence very slightly.

Yet another possibility; he could be mistaking Building 6 for something else.


Only a Truther would consider eyewitness evidence to be 100% infallible.

 

[Galileo]

Yet another possibility; he could be mistaking Building 6 for something else.


Only a Truther would consider eyewitness evidence to be 100% infallible.

So what's your argument? WTC 6 was on fire before WTC 1 fell, or it wasn't? Or do you have an argument?

 

[1337m4n]

So what's your argument? WTC 6 was on fire before WTC 1 fell, or it wasn't? Or do you have an argument?

My argument is that eyewitness testimony isn't 100% reliable.

You think there was arson in WTC 6? Why don't you prove it?

You have presented zero proof. Just speculation and cherrypicking.

Gosh, wouldn't that be a change, if a Truther actually provided proof of something. I would honestly be amazed.

Maybe you should ask yourself your own question: Do YOU have an argument?

 

[Confuseling]

Because explosions (or indeed collapses) are chaotic events

More (to preserve sense when original link fails)

 

[Galileo]

Because explosions (or indeed collapses) are chaotic events

More (to preserve sense when original link fails)

non responsive.

 

[Confuseling]

non responsive.

Elaborate?

 

[tsig]

Does anyone here actually have an explanation why WTC 6 started on fire, but not WTC 1? I expect more from you people, not just idle banter. A witness says explosions in the lobby started the fire. No plane hit WTC 6. The WTC 6 fire created a great smokescreen for what happened in WTC 7, you know.

Great expectations.

 

[Galileo]

Elaborate?

your links go to stuff about Hiroshima. You are not a "mini-nuke" activist, are you?

WTC 6 was fully involved with fire BEFORE the North tower fell. We have a witness who saw explosions in the WTC 6. Can you put two and two together?

 

[beachnut]

9/11 truth, 6 years, no clue. After you study WTC6 and figure out you are manufacturing lies, post your results. Let see how long that will take. It took you over 6 years to make up this lie question, it could take 60 for you to understand you made it up with faulty logic. Or 600. I will check back.

 

[Galileo]

9/11 truth, 6 years, no clue. After you study WTC6 and figure out you are manufacturing lies, post your results. Let see how long that will take. It took you over 6 years to make up this lie question, it could take 60 for you to understand you made it up with faulty logic. Or 600. I will check back.

In other words, you admit that you have no clue why WTC 6 caught on fire, and you've ruled out explosions because terrorists never blow things up.

 

[Confuseling]

Don't be obtuse. You asked how it's possible for one building to catch fire, when one that we might more reasonably expect to didn't.

We answered your question. Any others?

 

[The Big Dog]

"Yet WTC 1 is only a little over 100 feet away and not screened, and doesn't catch on fire."

Well, now here is the little misrepresentation hiding inside Galileo's cut and paste from the Killtown garbage.

This whole thread is about wtc6 starting on fire, but wtc1 not being damaged by WTC2's collapse. Of course, he cites absolutely nothing at all to support the conclusion that WTC1 was not damaged by the collapse in the first place.

Prove wtc1 was not damaged by the collapse of wtc2.

/and for god's sake stop reading idiocy from No Planers.

 

[Galileo]

"Yet WTC 1 is only a little over 100 feet away and not screened, and doesn't catch on fire."

Well, now here is the little misrepresentation hiding inside Galileo's cut and paste from the Killtown garbage.

This whole thread is about wtc6 starting on fire, but wtc1 not being damaged by WTC2's collapse. Of course, he cites absolutely nothing at all to support the conclusion that WTC1 was not damaged by the collapse in the first place.

Prove wtc1 was not damaged by the collapse of wtc2.

/and for god's sake stop reading idiocy from No Planers.

It doesn't matter if Killtown is a "no planer" site. They did an interview with an eyewitness to WTC 6. Your argument is idiotic. Killtown didn't redact their interview, either, like the NYFD did.

And I have no idea why you want me to prove WTC 1 was not damaged by WTC 2. WTC 1 was damaged by WTC 2, but it didn't catch fire, that's the point.

When you debunkers are boxed into a corner you scurry like weasels.