• 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?

Galileo said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have a witness to "flashes and pops" at a time when WTC2 had just collapsed and buildings were on fire. She says "the sound was not all that loud", and "I don't think these "pops" could have been heard from the street". This is an evidence based forum; what's your evidence that these flashes and pops that were "not all that loud" were bombs?

Dave
 
Galileo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your witness's statement does not prove explosives. It's true that she believes they were there, but that's a belief, not proof. Her own admissions argue against her belief.

If there were explosives, why was she not able to hear them outside, as she admitted to Killtown?

If there were explosives, why did she describe the sound inside the lobby as "pops"?

If there were explosives, why was that police officer standing there instead of running himself, as she said he was doing?

Patricia Ondrovic said:
I remember hoping they got out as I was watching whatever the small explosions were, because they stayed in the building.
Click to expand...
(My bolding for emphasis)

And if there were explosives, why are you attributing that as the cause of the fires? As I said earlier, observe any video of any of the old hotels/casinos being destroyed in Las Vegas. There were no fires involved in those cases. Heck, even if Ms. Ondrovic was somehow correct and there were indeed explosives there, you still fail in tying those to the fires, especially because buildings demolitions do not start fires. Which was the point of your OP, by the way, that WTC 6 was set aflame.

You yourself are lacking evidence. At least I admit that I'm speculating, and my speculations have a firmer footing than yours: There's no interpretation on the part of Peruggia saying that "debris was falling". He's stating a fact. But there is nothing but interpretation - and as a matter of fact, nothing but speculation - in Ondrovich saying "I immediately got the impression (my bolding) they were timed explosives". A witness statement saying she believes they were demolitions does not make it so, especially in the light of the fact that her own description of the event contradicts her own stance. Be careful in saying that "pops" equal "explosions", and beware of saying something getting blown up equals something catching fire. You've not demonstrated either of those two points, and you're leaning on an EMT's evaluation of what constitutes an explosive rather than noting that the effects she describes hardly add up to such.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Your witness's statement does not prove explosives. It's true that she believes they were there, but that's a belief, not proof. Her own admissions argue against her belief.

If there were explosives, why was she not able to hear them outside, as she admitted to Killtown?

If there were explosives, why did she describe the sound inside the lobby as "pops"?

If there were explosives, why was that police officer standing there instead of running himself, as she said he was doing?


(My bolding for emphasis)

And if there were explosives, why are you attributing that as the cause of the fires? As I said earlier, observe any video of any of the old hotels/casinos being destroyed in Las Vegas. There were no fires involved in those cases. Heck, even if Ms. Ondrovic was somehow correct and there were indeed explosives there, you still fail in tying those to the fires, especially because buildings demolitions do not start fires. Which was the point of your OP, by the way, that WTC 6 was set aflame.

You yourself are lacking evidence. At least I admit that I'm speculating, and my speculations have a firmer footing than yours: There's no interpretation on the part of Peruggia saying that "debris was falling". He's stating a fact. But there is nothing but interpretation - and as a matter of fact, nothing but speculation - in Ondrovich saying "I immediately got the impression (my bolding) they were timed explosives". A witness statement saying she believes they were demolitions does not make it so, especially in the light of the fact that her own description of the event contradicts her own stance. Be careful in saying that "pops" equal "explosions", and beware of saying something getting blown up equals something catching fire. You've not demonstrated either of those two points, and you're leaning on an EMT's evaluation of what constitutes an explosive rather than noting that the effects she describes hardly add up to such.
Click to expand...

you're good at petty nit-picking, but it doesn't change the fact that there's more evidence to bombs starting the WTC 6 on fire, than WTC 2 falling down causing it.

True to tradition, you'll probably prefer theory to evidence. That's why you guys are conspiracy theorists and I'm the founder of the scientific revolution.
 
Galileo said:
you're good at petty nit-picking, but it doesn't change the fact that there's more evidence to bombs starting the WTC 6 on fire, than WTC 2 falling down causing it.

True to tradition, you'll probably prefer theory to evidence. That's why you guys are conspiracy theorists and I'm the founder of the scientific revolution.
Click to expand...

It is not a nitpick to say that a witness observed debris falling from the North Tower, nor is it a nitpick to note contradictions in your witness's statements. And on top of that, it's not a nitpick to point out that explosive demolitions do not lead to fires. Your statement was that WTC 6 was "arson". Since when do comments about "pops" in the lobby equal arson? They don't even equal "explosives", not when they don't send people running or bring the component they were supposedly demolishing down (remember: The policeman Odrovich mentions was preventing her from entering the lobby when she observed the flashes. Why did the roof not collapse on him? Why did she talk about following his instructions rather than outrunning the collapse? Again, Odrovich's statement contradicts the notion of explosives, and the lack of evidence in the debris outright falsifies it).

And if you want to talk about evidence: Where's yours? You have a witness statement, and that's it. You have no evidence in the form of structural components showing signs of explosives use. Contrast that to the FEMA BPR, which notes impact damage and fire damage but no explosives damage. Explain that.

Your evidence is nonexistent. A single witness interpreting phenomena as explosives in the absence of common explosive effects - overpressure, noise, actual ejection of structural components, people in close proximity not being injured, let alone running away, etc. - is only weak supposition. It's certainly not evidence.

And no, I never said WTC 2 falling down was the cause of anything to do with WTC 1. I have consistently said that I believe it was debris from WTC 1, not 2, which started those fires.
 
Last edited:
Galileo said:
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.
Click to expand...

We're using abductive reasoningWP. What are you doing? Do you really enjoy it?
 
Galileo said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not making an argument. I'm simply making fun of the truth movement.
 
making fun of 3000 dead people is not funny, nor appropriate for this forum.
Click to expand...

No. Truth movement != 3,000 dead people. Big difference.
The value of the entire truth movement doesn't even come close to the value of the life ONE person, who died on 9/11, had.
 
Galileo said:
you're good at petty nit-picking, but it doesn't change the fact that there's more evidence to bombs starting the WTC 6 on fire, than WTC 2 falling down causing it.

True to tradition, you'll probably prefer theory to evidence. That's why you guys are conspiracy theorists and I'm the founder of the scientific revolution.
Click to expand...

I really, REALLY hope you're joking.

You ARE joking, right? Please tell me you're joking.
 
Galileo said:
you're good at petty nit-picking, but it doesn't change the fact that there's more evidence to bombs starting the WTC 6 on fire, than WTC 2 falling down causing it.
Click to expand...

Tiny flashes are not bombs. They are tiny flashes.
 
Ohh...let me play dumb truther and ask Cui Bono...then we will find out why WTC 6 was burnt although it was in the midst of falling debris from the tower above...Cui Bono


Cui Bono


Sonny Bono....
 
So what about Odrovich's statement proves explosives? And how does that explanation stand in the face of
  1. The fact that the "explosives" were not heard outside,
  2. The fact that no one ran from them, and
  3. The fact that the explosives never brought the building down (recall, everyone, that WTC 6 had to be "pulled" via cables and machines by demolitions crews).
I'm still waiting to hear that. So where's the rest of this "evidence" you speak of? The only thing I've seen you present is an argument that it couldn't have been started by WTC 2's collapse - something that isn't in contention in the least bit -and an EMT's opinion. I don't see any physical evidence, nor any documentation of effects consistent with explosives. I don't even see any arguments eliminating the possibility I speculated about, that falling debris from WTC 1 caused the fires. All I see is you saying "prove it" while trying to spin a person's interpretation as proof. Where's the evidence? I'm still waiting to hear it.

I'm also waiting to see how such explosives lead to the fires. As said more than once before, no fires that I'm aware of resulted from any of the Las Vegas explosive demolitions.
 
first of all, let me point out that it is obvious to any expert on fire fighting and human behavior during a fire that Ondrovic is one of the less credible witnesses to the chain of events surrounding the collapses of the towers. She utterly freaked. She didn't know whether to go poo or go blind. She paniced. She lost it. She was running down the street with her turnout coat on fire. It is entirely possible for debris from the south tower reach WTYC 6. It is much lower than surrounding buildings. A single steel member could have reached that far, and caused a fire in some generator system or cause power supplies to short out. What ONdrovic saw could as well be lighting shorting out. That there were guards inside the building tell Ondrovic not to come in means that the bursts could not have been at all energetic.

Or cars or burning paper could have started the fires.

When it hit ammo stroage, I am sure the fire got hot and energetic.
 
Galileo said:
WTC 1 was on fire at the 95th floor and above from the airplane strike.

I'm talking about all the debris from WTC 2 that hit WTC 1, how come that debris didn't start any fires? Yet 400 feet away, and hitting only a small section of WTC 6 that was exposed (most was screened by WTC 1), started WTC 6 on fire so that almost the entire building was ablaze, before WTC 1 collapsed.

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

On October 6th, shortly before midnight a PO2 plane from the 587th Night Bomber Regiment was caught in heavy fire from a German placement somewhere in Ukraine. The small light biplane took at least 600 machine gun rounds passing through wings and fuselage, and no less that three 88MM flak grenades passed through both lower and upper wing, without exploding, but leaving large (at least 88mm large) holes. However, no vital parts of the plane was hit, and it returned to base, landing safely.

Later that year, another PO2 plane was hit over Finland by a single rifle bullet fired from a ground trooper aiming in its general direction. The bullet ruptured the fuel line and brought the plane down.

Why do I tell those stories? Well, obviously, a single hit in the right (wrong, depending of viewpoint) can be catastrophic. A building and an ancient light biplane have something in common: They may take an awful punishing without being seriously compromised, OTOH, a single hit in a crucial spot can destroy them.

If you are interested in learning about the PO2 plane, read here: http://www.hans-egebo.dk/Polikarpof.htm

Hans
 
I would like to educate myself on this matter.
Do firefighters reports other than the testimony of John Peruggia confirm that WTC6 was fully involved with fire before the 2nd collapse
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
What ONdrovic saw could as well be lighting shorting out. That there were guards inside the building tell Ondrovic not to come in means that the bursts could not have been at all energetic.
Click to expand...

Teeny, tiny nitpick, Sarge: She does come out and say that there were no light fixtures where she saw the flashes. But again, that's a nitpick. I agree that what she said must still mean there were some other electrical wiring or components there, they just had nothing to do with light fixtures. Maybe the wiring or components were for something else, or simply leading someplace else. Like the floor above, perhaps.

Anyway, just letting you know what she said.
 
Last edited:
eeyore1954 said:
I would like to educate myself on this matter.
Do firefighters reports other than the testimony of John Peruggia confirm that WTC6 was fully involved with fire before the 2nd collapse
Click to expand...

Not in the firefighter testimony I've read so far. But, I haven't read them all - there's a lot there! - so it's entirely possible that someone else did in fact confirm this, and I just haven't seen it yet.

Remember, though, that Peruggia had discussed debris falling from the North Tower prior to collapse. He mentions this more than once, in fact, and also said that it actually prevented his group from setting up emergency operations on Vesey Street. So that right there opens the possibility that it was indeed Tower 1 debris that set building 6 on fire, since there was debris falling before Tower 1 collapsed.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Teeny, tiny nitpick, Sarge: She does come out and say that there were no light fixtures where she saw the flashes. But again, that's a nitpick. I agree that what she said must still mean there were some other electrical wiring or components there, they just had nothing to do with light fixtures. Maybe the wiring or components were for something else, or simply leading someplace else. Like the floor above, perhaps.

Anyway, just letting you know what she said.
Click to expand...

Or the bubblegum lights on some of the vehicles on the street may have been hitting some feature on the walls and cieling or were being reflecrted off glass in the building. Ondrovic was kind of freaked out and not thinking clearly at the time. She has bombs going off at random around her as she runs away as though someone were pushing a detonator button just to mess with her head and she mentions fire shooting out of the ground as though there were no possible explanation other than bombs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom