Arson in WTC 6?

[Confuseling]

I'm almost bored of my pet talking point. But I'm pretty bored of this conversation, too, so I suppose it's apt.

There are witnesses who claim that they heard / saw / felt an explosion. Some of them, perhaps, go as far as saying it was a bomb. This information is in the public domain.

There are, whenever big buildings catch fire, explosions. There will be reports - some of which may use the word bomb.

I am not personally in a position to decide how many reports of an explosion for a given number of people for a given size of fire would indicate the likely use of explosives. I doubt you are either.

Investigative agencies in the US, using much better evidence (including the acid test forensics) have found no evidence of explosives.

If you are claiming that there is evidence trumping that in these (public domain) witness accounts, then you need to explain why no criminal investigators in the US are making a stink. Bought off or threatened? All of them? How about EVERY OTHER government IN THE ENTIRE WORLD? Are you honestly saying that the Chinese government hasn't noticed what you have? Or are they covering for Cheney?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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.

To this date there have been no physical remains of explosives found in either ground zero or the impacted structures that suffered damage from the collapse of towers one & two. Without that your contention of bombs has zero credibility, as do the same claims made by others who involve themselves with the truth movement. Funny thing is... this fact is totally ignored.

WTC 6 doesn't prove anything except that it was crushed by massive sections of debris.

It's utterly sickening how much simple grammar like SIMILES, and METAPHORS are butchered and abused to to make the speculations fit.

 

[Galileo]

Maybe Peruggia didn't know which building was 5 and which was 6. Since Peruggia's statement appears to be the only piece of evidence Galileo has, let's start with something simple like that.

Peruggia worked in the WTC area, and knows very clearly the difference between WTC 5 and WTC 6. I suggest you actually read his testimony before jumping to foolish conclusions. Your behaviour is typical of archie debunkers, form theory first, check facts later, if at all.

 

[Galileo]

To this date there have been no physical remains of explosives found in either ground zero or the impacted structures that suffered damage from the collapse of towers one & two. Without that your contention of bombs has zero credibility, as do the same claims made by others who involve themselves with the truth movement. Funny thing is... this fact is totally ignored.

WTC 6 doesn't prove anything except that it was crushed by massive sections of debris.

It's utterly sickening how much simple grammar like SIMILES, and METAPHORS are butchered and abused to to make the speculations fit.

WTC 6 was "fully involved with fire" before any massive debris fell on it. Your theory how it caught on fire has zero credibility.

 

[Galileo]

I'm almost bored of my pet talking point. But I'm pretty bored of this conversation, too, so I suppose it's apt.

There are witnesses who claim that they heard / saw / felt an explosion. Some of them, perhaps, go as far as saying it was a bomb. This information is in the public domain.

There are, whenever big buildings catch fire, explosions. There will be reports - some of which may use the word bomb.

I am not personally in a position to decide how many reports of an explosion for a given number of people for a given size of fire would indicate the likely use of explosives. I doubt you are either.

Investigative agencies in the US, using much better evidence (including the acid test forensics) have found no evidence of explosives.

If you are claiming that there is evidence trumping that in these (public domain) witness accounts, then you need to explain why no criminal investigators in the US are making a stink. Bought off or threatened? All of them? How about EVERY OTHER government IN THE ENTIRE WORLD? Are you honestly saying that the Chinese government hasn't noticed what you have? Or are they covering for Cheney?

You need to explain your bizarre, convuluted theory why WTC 6 caught on fire before WTC 1 fell, and why the report of explosions in the lobby had nothing to do with it, according to your bizarre theory.

I've already explained it; bombs in the WTC 6 lobby started it on fire. My explanation fits the facts. Your blabbering about the Chinese has nothing to do with it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I've already explained it; bombs in the WTC 6 lobby started it on fire. My explanation fits the facts. Your blabbering about the Chinese has nothing to do with it.

I've stated nothing about how the fires on WTC 6 started.
You've ignored one of my points. Where is the physical evidence of bombs? Why in seven years has nobody found remnants of any kind? you're the one claiming the fire was started by bombs, the burden of proof rests on you.

 

[JamesB]

Oh for the love of all that is holy!!!

Why in the world would someone plant bombs in WTC6 to start fires? Do you truthers think that conspirators do things for no other purpose other than to give idiots on the Internet some way to unravel their nefarious plots?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Peruggia said he saw plane debris and other debris on the ground next to WTC 1.

And that doesn't preclude the possibility that debris from WTC 1 fell on building 6 prior to collapse. As a matter of fact, it strengthens the possibility.

 

[John Blonn]

So that's what, now, four buildings that were "brought down by controlled demolitions" or had bombs in them on 9/11, all in broad daylight, in front of hundreds of cameras and thousands of rescue personnel.

How exactly does WTC6 CD fit into the grand masters' schemes?

Why not just plant bombs in all the WTC center buildings while you're at it?

Forget that it would have been 10000% easier for the conspirators to put, oh I don't know, one bomb in WTC 1, blow it up, kill a bunch of people, and then blame it on Al Qaida.

NO WAY! Let's fly planes into buildings first and hope not to mess up the bombs we've placed and then set off amazingly silent and nonflashy CD charges (or is it thermite?) and then decide to CD a different building hours later for seemingly no reason and make sure firefighters don't say a word about it and then you know what let's put bombs in WTC6 to start fires for unknown reasons and then let's fly a plane into the Pentagon, or maybe not a plane a missile and make it look like a plane, and then fly a plane and crash it in field in PA, or maybe shoot it down, and we gotta make sure there are 0 whistleblowers, including agencies like the CIA FBI FEMA military government science and technology because we'll need a lot of help to do this, or actually there was no plane at Shanksville it was fake too, we'll just make a big hole and put some stuff in it and let the coroner say he found no bodies there not a single drop of blood, that'll make sense, and then we'll blame it all on Al Qaida, get into a war in Iraq and get bogged down in a quagmire and horrible political situation, and then let this lead into a failing economy and probably losing control of the White House and Congress and other political positions and then....? And we gotta hope that not only smart people in the US but also in other countries around the world don't catch on to our plan even though there are a lot of scientists and investigative reporters and scholars who would find this out easily given that it was one of the most documented events IN HISTORY.

 

[jhunter1163]

I suggest you actually read his testimony before jumping to foolish conclusions.

Truther, heal thyself.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

It all makes perfect sense! I can see it now...

Cheney: OK, we've got bombs and planes, but how about some good old fashioned arson? A little homage to the classics, if you get my drift. I'm thinking we torch building 6 after we blow wtc2, but before we bring down wtc1. How cool will that be, to screw with people like that? Not to mention that big flames get Lynn hotter than hell. How's that for symmetry? Don't know why, but hell if I care. All I know is yule log DVDs rule.

Anyway, the show'll be pretty much over once we implode wtc1, so it damn well better be lit up before then. Lynn likes flames, which means Dick likes flames, and Dick always gets what Dick wants.

And let's not pull building 7 until the late afternoon. By the time Lynn gets through rockin' my world, I'll need a three martini lunch and a few hours to sober up. That one will be quite a show as well, so I'd like to be lucid when it happens.

Now get to work, guys. Kill!, Kill!, Kill!

 

[Dave Rogers]

Peruggia worked in the WTC area, and knows very clearly the difference between WTC 5 and WTC 6. I suggest you actually read his testimony before jumping to foolish conclusions.

I suggest you actually read what his testimony says, rather than what you want it to say. He states outright that he's unsure of events in the same paragraph where he mentions the fire in WTC6. He may have confused it with another building at the time. He may have confabulated his recollection of seeing WTC6 with his recollection of seeing the fire in WTC5, a common error in memory. He may have returned to the area after the collapse of WTC1 and forgotten that he did so. Whatever spin anyone tries to put on Peruggia's testimony, you cannot ignore the fact that he personally stated that his recollections were cloudy.

Dave

 

[dbalsdon]

[ot]
So, have truthers given up on 1, 2, 7 and the pentagon? Or has it just taken them 7 years to realise that more then 3 buildings collapsed due to the attacks?
[/ot]

 

[eeyore1954]

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.

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.

If WTC6 was fully involved with fire before the collapses can you find any video showing the smoke rising from it while the two towers were burning. There might be some but i do not recall seeing three plumes of smoke only two.


I am not sure if it is true that WTC 6 was fully involved in fire before any collapse but if it had been why would that have been something that couldn't be explained . If burning debris from the plane crash had hit the WTC 6 it most likely would have landed on or through the roof making it easy to start a fire. If debris hit WTC 1 would more likely have hit and then fallen to the ground instead of in the building. So inspite of the famous inverse cube rule for flying burning debris

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.

I would not see anything unusual with wtc 6 catching fire while 1 did not. There could have been other explanations burning embers from one of the buildings may have ignited it and these would also have been more likely to ignite if they landed on the roof of a building instead of the side of one.

Problem is, there is a preponderance of evidence that bombs were placed in WTC 6,

I feel sorry for someone who is on trial and you are on the jury. Your conception of preponderance of evidence is more like most peoples little or no evidence.

 

[Galileo]

And that doesn't preclude the possibility that debris from WTC 1 fell on building 6 prior to collapse. As a matter of fact, it strengthens the possibility.

What's your evidence?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

What's your evidence?

You yourself said that a witness saw debris lying around tower 1, and the implication is that it was there prior to WTC 1's collapse. What's to stop debris from also hitting building 6? It's right there, next to the North Tower.

On top of that, as I said, the FEMA BPR states that the exterior columns of WTC 1 had impacted WTC 6. Again, it's unclear whether they mean it happened during WTC 1's collapse or prior to that, but they state clearly that it happened. Now, if you can prove that such debris impacts did not happen prior to the main tower's collapse, then you've eliminated the BPR as the source for the info, but you still haven't refuted the possibility that debris loosened and fell prior to collapse.

 

[Galileo]

You yourself said that a witness saw debris lying around tower 1, and the implication is that it was there prior to WTC 1's collapse. What's to stop debris from also hitting building 6? It's right there, next to the North Tower.

On top of that, as I said, the FEMA BPR states that the exterior columns of WTC 1 had impacted WTC 6. Again, it's unclear whether they mean it happened during WTC 1's collapse or prior to that, but they state clearly that it happened. Now, if you can prove that such debris impacts did not happen prior to the main tower's collapse, then you've eliminated the BPR as the source for the info, but you still haven't refuted the possibility that debris loosened and fell prior to collapse.

You think exterior columns of WTC 1 flew over to WTC 6 before WTC 1 collapsed? Care to write that up in a peer reviewed paper?

 

[peteweaver]

As soon as the first plane impacted, there would have been some burning debris.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You think exterior columns of WTC 1 flew over to WTC 6 before WTC 1 collapsed? Care to write that up in a peer reviewed paper?

Yes, I am indeed raising the possibility that it happened prior to the main tower collapse. First, look at a map of the complex; WTC 6 is located rather close to WTC 1. The Solomon (aka WTC 7) and the Verizon buildings were also hit, and they're all the way across the street, further away from WTC 1 than building 6 is.

Whether that occurred before during Tower 1's collapse is not something that's directly, definitively documented by "official sources" like FEMA or NIST, but witness testimony says it happened. That was why I was raising the possibility. You yourself pointed out a witness who said that debris from Tower 1 was spotted on the ground prior to that tower's collapse.

I didn't have any EMS people working out on Vesey Street proper, because it was not a safe location. There was people jumping out of the windows of the World Trade Center. We were witnessing that. There was debris falling down from the north tower and making its way on to the street and promenade where we were located.

And yes, that was the North side of WTC 1, the same side that WTC 6 was on. Look at a map; Vesey Street is on the north side, between the WTC1/WTC6 and WTC 7 across the street. If the falling debris was reaching as far as out into the street, it's no stretch whatsoever to imagine that it could also hit WTC 6. That building is right there, right under the impact point of the jet, after all. The only thing that keeps me from tying in such witness testimony with the FEMA BPR is that no one ever identified the falling debris as being the "exterior columns", which is what FEMA specifies, so there's still a possibility that FEMA and witnesses like Peruggia were talking about two different things. Nevertheless, we do have witnesses testifying that debris was falling from the North Tower prior to collapse, in fact during the time they were trying to get rescue operations set up in WTC 7. So why is it difficult to accept that such debris might have been the cause of the fires in WTC 6? Explosives don't set things on fire normally; watch any video of proven, admitted explosives demolition, such as the various hotels in Las Vegas. There's no fire after those events.

 

[Galileo]

Yes, I am indeed raising the possibility that it happened prior to the main tower collapse. First, look at a map of the complex; WTC 6 is located rather close to WTC 1. The Solomon (aka WTC 7) and the Verizon buildings were also hit, and they're all the way across the street, further away from WTC 1 than building 6 is.

Whether that occurred before during Tower 1's collapse is not something that's directly, definitively documented by "official sources" like FEMA or NIST, but witness testimony says it happened. That was why I was raising the possibility. You yourself pointed out a witness who said that debris from Tower 1 was spotted on the ground prior to that tower's collapse.



And yes, that was the North side of WTC 1, the same side that WTC 6 was on. Look at a map; Vesey Street is on the north side, between the WTC1/WTC6 and WTC 7 across the street. If the falling debris was reaching as far as out into the street, it's no stretch whatsoever to imagine that it could also hit WTC 6. That building is right there, right under the impact point of the jet, after all. The only thing that keeps me from tying in such witness testimony with the FEMA BPR is that no one ever identified the falling debris as being the "exterior columns", which is what FEMA specifies, so there's still a possibility that FEMA and witnesses like Peruggia were talking about two different things. Nevertheless, we do have witnesses testifying that debris was falling from the North Tower prior to collapse, in fact during the time they were trying to get rescue operations set up in WTC 7. So why is it difficult to accept that such debris might have been the cause of the fires in WTC 6? Explosives don't set things on fire normally; watch any video of proven, admitted explosives demolition, such as the various hotels in Las Vegas. There's no fire after those events.

you're speculating, which is what all free-thinking debunkers do. This is an evidence based forum. The simplist explanation is that the bombs in the lobby started the fire, we have a witness to that. You don't have a witness, nor common sense on your side.