• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Arson in WTC 6?

Confuseling said:
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?
Click to expand...

You haven't answered my question. We have a witness who saw explosions in the WTC 6 lobby. She saw no explosions in the WTC 1 lobby.

Go figure, WTC 6 starts on fire and WTC 1 doesn't.
 
Why couldn't WTC 6 have been set aflame by falling debris from Tower 1? Yes, I know the testimony of it being on fire places that sighting prior to the North Tower's collapse, but none of that that precludes the possibility of some elements from the North Tower falling ahead of time. The structure was compromised by the impact, after all.

Or, how far is WTC 5? That building's not shielded from the South Tower, and as a matter of fact was hit by a part of UA175's fuselage when it exited the South Tower. Could fire from that building have spread to WTC6? The point in bringing this up is that there's nothing to be gleaned from sources like the FEMA Building Performance Reports, but given the proximity and simple common sense, we can come up with many reasons for the fire more that are likely than any conspiracy theory about planted demolitions or incendiaries.
 
Galileo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Killtown is a No Planer clown, I would not accept his representation of that "interview" if my life depended on it.

But we are getting somewhere! You admit "that WTC 1 was damaged by WTC 2." Great! Now (you must have known this was coming because of your little whine at the end):

Prove that the damage to the wtc1 caused by the collapse of wtc2 did not result in any fires in wtc1.

And remember always, the absence of evidence is not evidence (i.e the suggestion that a witness did not see fires following the collapse does not show that there were not any fires).
 
Last edited:
Actually, I know this one. I was watching them destroy tower 2 with the death ray, and I got a little excited and spilled my triple non-fat caramel sauce latte on the operator. He jumped a bit and in the process hit the joystick to the left a little and we accidently set building 6 on fire a little. We didn't think anyone would notice in all the excitement. Sorry guys. I will prepare the termination orders immediately.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Why couldn't WTC 6 have been set aflame by falling debris from Tower 1? Yes, I know the testimony of it being on fire places that sighting prior to the North Tower's collapse, but none of that that precludes the possibility of some elements from the North Tower falling ahead of time. The structure was compromised by the impact, after all.

Or, how far is WTC 5? That building's not shielded from the South Tower, and as a matter of fact was hit by a part of UA175's fuselage when it exited the South Tower. Could fire from that building have spread to WTC6? The point in bringing this up is that there's nothing to be gleaned from sources like the FEMA Building Performance Reports, but given the proximity and simple common sense, we can come up with many reasons for the fire more that are likely than any conspiracy theory about planted demolitions or incendiaries.
Click to expand...

you don't have any evidence for what you're saying. The plane that hit the South tower hit over towards the west side and the plane debris that went through WTC 2 did not land near WTC 6 at all.

The plane that hit WTC 1 came from the north. There is no evidence any debris fell onto WTC 6, some debris fell on the ground next to WTC 1, not much compared to the debris that flew from WTC 2 to WTC 1 when WTC 2 exploded.

You amaze me. Instead of listening to what the witnesses say, you try to jam your speculative ideas into your preconceived theories.

I use evidence based arguments to determine what happened on 9/11.

Have you heard of Occum's razor? The simplist explanation is that terrorists put bombs in WTC 6, people saw the bombs go off, and others saw WTC 6 burst into flames.
 
16.5 said:
Killtown is a No Planer clown, I would not accept his representation of that "interview" if my life depended on it.

But we are getting somewhere! You admit "that WTC 1 was damaged by WTC 2." Great! Now (you must have known this was coming because of your little whine at the end):

Prove that the damage to the wtc1 caused by the collapse of wtc2 did not result in any fires in wtc1.

And remember always, the absence of evidence is not evidence (i.e the suggestion that a witness did not see fires following the collapse does not show that there were not any fires).
Click to expand...

Peruggia said the fire was in WTC 6, not WTC 1 (except for the top above floor 95).

We also have continuous camera shots of WTC 1 until it fell, and no fires are present, below floor 95.

We also have eyewitnesses from outside WTC 1 from all four sides and none saw a fire.

Tell me where you think the WTC 1 fire was.
 
Galileo said:
you don't have any evidence for what you're saying. The plane that hit the South tower hit over towards the west side and the plane debris that went through WTC 2 did not land near WTC 6 at all.

The plane that hit WTC 1 came from the north. There is no evidence any debris fell onto WTC 6, some debris fell on the ground next to WTC 1, not much compared to the debris that flew from WTC 2 to WTC 1 when WTC 2 exploded.

You amaze me. Instead of listening to what the witnesses say, you try to jam your speculative ideas into your preconceived theories.

I use evidence based arguments to determine what happened on 9/11.

Have you heard of Occum's razor? The simplist explanation is that terrorists put bombs in WTC 6, people saw the bombs go off, and others saw WTC 6 burst into flames.
Click to expand...

Given the lack of opportunity for such explosives emplacement, not to mention the post-collapse investigation turning nothing remotely close to such explosives evidence up, it seems as though you're the one jamming speculative ideas into preconceived theories.

For starters, I said that flight 175 debris hit WTC5, not 6, and I was presenting the possibility that WTC5 might have had something to do with the fire in 6. Yes, that's speculation, and I'm labeling it so, but how's that any less likely than some hypothesis about terrorist bombs in building 6? Especially given the lack of post-collapse evidence collected, and especially given that there is ample evidence of WTC5 being on fire?

And I'm aware that the direction that UA175 was from the north, therefore directing the impact southward and ejecting impact debris away from building 6. That doesn't preclude some other structural components damaged in that impact from eventually falling and hitting the smaller building to the north; we know that side of WTC1 was definitely damaged, after all. But while we're here, you're wrong about there being no evidence of debris from WTC 1 not falling on building 6. The FEMA BPR specifically states that damage to building 6 occured from WTC1's exterior columns impacting. I had always thought that to mean WTC1's debris hit building 6 when it (WTC1) collapsed, but looking back, I now see that they don't specify when those members fell, only that they did. At any rate, it's absolutely incorrect to say that WTC1 debris landed "next to" building 6. That's not what happened at all. WTC1 debris landed "on", not "next to".
 
Galileo said:
Peruggia said the fire was in WTC 6, not WTC 1 (except for the top above floor 95).

We also have continuous camera shots of WTC 1 until it fell, and no fires are present, below floor 95.

We also have eyewitnesses from outside WTC 1 from all four sides and none saw a fire.

Tell me where you think the WTC 1 fire was.
Click to expand...

Wait... what?? You're not trying to say there was no fire at all in WTC 1, right? Just that there was no fire or damage caused by WTC 2's collapse, correct?
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Given the lack of opportunity for such explosives emplacement, not to mention the post-collapse investigation turning nothing remotely close to such explosives evidence up, it seems as though you're the one jamming speculative ideas into preconceived theories.

For starters, I said that flight 175 debris hit WTC5, not 6, and I was presenting the possibility that WTC5 might have had something to do with the fire in 6. Yes, that's speculation, and I'm labeling it so, but how's that any less likely than some hypothesis about terrorist bombs in building 6? Especially given the lack of post-collapse evidence collected, and especially given that there is ample evidence of WTC5 being on fire?

And I'm aware that the direction that UA175 was from the north, therefore directing the impact southward and ejecting impact debris away from building 6. That doesn't preclude some other structural components damaged in that impact from eventually falling and hitting the smaller building to the north; we know that side of WTC1 was definitely damaged, after all. But while we're here, you're wrong about there being no evidence of debris from WTC 1 not falling on building 6. The FEMA BPR specifically states that damage to building 6 occured from WTC1's exterior columns impacting. I had always thought that to mean WTC1's debris hit building 6 when it (WTC1) collapsed, but looking back, I now see that they don't specify when those members fell, only that they did. At any rate, it's absolutely incorrect to say that WTC1 debris landed "next to" building 6. That's not what happened at all. WTC1 debris landed "on", not "next to".
Click to expand...

Peruggia said he saw plane debris and other debris on the ground next to WTC 1.
 
Galileo said:
Peruggia said the fire was in WTC 6, not WTC 1 (except for the top above floor 95).

We also have continuous camera shots of WTC 1 until it fell, and no fires are present, below floor 95.

We also have eyewitnesses from outside WTC 1 from all four sides and none saw a fire.
Click to expand...

O'Rly? You mean under all the debris, dust, smoke after the collapse of WTC2 we had all of that? I'll be damned.

Try again.
 
~enigma~ said:
Nobody from outside WTC 1 saw a fire? You are the dumbest truther in the galaxy.
Click to expand...

Besides breaking JREF rules, your statement is idiotic. You should know that we are talking about alleged fires below the 95th floor of WTC 1, caused by debris damage from the collapsing WTC 2.
 
16.5 said:
O'Rly? You mean under all the debris, dust, smoke after the collapse of WTC2 we had all of that? I'll be damned.

Try again.
Click to expand...

err, the fire in WTC 6 was easily seen, and it was on fire, making it harder to see because of the smoke.

We have numerous eyewitnesses who saw, heard and felt explosions in WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. Now we have WTC 6. The evidence fits the theory!
 
16.5 said:
Bump for, you know, PROOF?

/argument from incredulity ain't proof.
Click to expand...

According to the NIST report, there was no fire in WTC 1 below the 95th floor, caused by debris from WTC 2.

BUMP YOU VERY MUCH!!!!
 
16.5 said:
Bump for a CITE and LINK?
Click to expand...

In your wild fantasies, do you really believe there was a raging fire in WTC 1, caused by debris from WTC 2?

You illustrate the irrational. When the facts don't fit your theory, you just BS us all day.

Problem is, there is a preponderance of evidence that bombs were placed in WTC 6, just like they were placed in WTC 7 (which almost killed Barry Jennings and Mike Hess), in WTC 1 (that almost killed Willie Rodriguez & others), and many reports in WTC 2.

The evidence of bombs in WTC 6 proves that 9/11 was an inside job, planned out by terrorists. These terrorists are still at large and may strike again and kill more innocent Americans.

You can't win this one, buddy, your BS cannot explain away why WTC 6 was "fully involved with fire" at about 9:30, while WTC 1 did not catch fire when WTC 2 exploded.

No site in the entire Internet makes this fact more clear. You people here are not rational, you just look for spin to peddle your gigantic worldwide, multi-continet anti-semitic conspiracy theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom