• 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?

johnny karate said:
Why does a professional investigator or law enforcement official need to read your post? Why can't any of them figure it out independently? Why are you the only that has been able to do that?
Click to expand...

Why was the evidence at WTC 6 not preserved for scientists to study?
 
Galileo said:
Why was the evidence at WTC 6 not preserved for scientists to study?
Click to expand...

True or not, it has nothing to do with the question I asked you. You managed to work it out sans physical evidence. Why hasn't a single professional investigator or law enforcement official on the entire planet been able to do the same?
 
Galileo said:
I've got an eyewitness who saw explosions. Another eyewitness saw WTC 6 on fire at around 11:15. You have guilty demeanor. This is an easy conviction.
Click to expand...
And yet if you try telling that to lawyers, they'll just laugh at you, proving that they're all in on it.

By the way, an "easy conviction" of whom? You have not yet named the criminals.

Oh, and please expand on this "guilty demeanor" business, it's funny.
 
Galileo, you have said that you have no evidence. Take that to a lawyer and instruct him/ her to start the proceedings. Tell us what happens.
 
Galileo said:
According to the testimony of John Peruggia:

"I saw 6 World Trade Center 6 fully involved with fire."

EMS DIVISION CHIEF JOHN PERUGGIA (page 31)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110160.PDF

This is after WTC 2 falls, but before WTC 1 falls.

Also testifying is EMP Patricia Ondrovic:

EMT PATRICIA ONDROVIC (page 9, 12, and 13)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110048.PDF

Her testimony is redacted.

She also testifies here:

9/11 Rescuer Saw Explosions Inside WTC 6 Lobby
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-rescuer-saw-explosions-inside-wtc.html

WTC 6 was about 400 feet from WTC 2 and mostly screened by WTC 1, and catches on fire. Yet WTC 1 is only a little over 100 feet away and not screened, and doesn't catch on fire. 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.

WTC 1 should have cought on fire, and WTC 6 should not have caught on fire.

We have an eyewitness to arson in WTC 6, to go along with the eyewitnesses to arson in WTC 7 (Jennings and Hess).

General Partin would agree with me on this.

:D
Click to expand...


These appear to be Galileo's witness statements, from the OP, in case anyone wants to read them.

Evidently the fact that WTC6 was on fire proves that it was on fire.
 
Galileo said:
I've got an eyewitness who saw explosions. Another eyewitness saw WTC 6 on fire at around 11:15. You have guilty demeanor. This is an easy conviction.
Click to expand...

Speculating that a mundane observation in a video is a premature explosion and then asserting that there are no visible fires = no fires at all is about as bad as it gets with evidence in a court case. You did two things in that last post; you intentionally downplayed the fires that were burning in the trade centers based solely on external appearance, and then you pulled that handy piece of speculation out of your arse based on what you wanted to see...
THAT does not fly for a conviction.

As for seeing explosions... why would I doubt that people heard or saw them? I would question that they were bombs, and understand that there was a mass of confusion that led people to initally believe there were, but that does not make it true.
 
johnny karate said:
True or not, it has nothing to do with the question I asked you. You managed to work it out sans physical evidence. Why hasn't a single professional investigator or law enforcement official on the entire planet been able to do the same?
Click to expand...

your question has nothing to do with my question. I started this thread, not you, so I get to ask the questions.

You claim that not a single investigator or law enforcment official has been able to do the same. Well, what's your evidence of that? Prove there isn't one.
 
Galileo said:
your question has nothing to do with my question. I started this thread, not you, so I get to ask the questions.
Click to expand...

The topic of this thread is regarding possible arson at WTC6. My original question deals directly with that issue.

Galileo said:
You claim that not a single investigator or law enforcment official has been able to do the same. Well, what's your evidence of that? Prove there isn't one.
Click to expand...

My evidence is that there has been absolutely no formal investigation of any type by anyone in any kind of official capacity into the alleged arson of WTC6. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, my point stands uncontested.

So back to my original question(s) that you keep ducking in a rather cowardly fashion:

If the collapse of WTC6 was the result of arson, why has this obvious and startling fact not been discerned and/or revealed by a single professional investigator or law enforcement official on the entire planet? Why is it that you seem to be the only one who has been able to figure this out?
 
Last edited:
Galileo said:
not relevant to the issue of guilty demeanor.
Click to expand...


Tens of millions of Americans haul their trash to the curb every week, in containers that are quite conveniently sized and shaped for holding and concealing dead bodies. By your standards that gives them all a guilty demeanor that juries would find very convincing, leading to easy conviction. So, when do the trials start? Are we all going to be tried at once, or one at a time?

Actually, a perfectly sensible and expected reason for taking an action nullifies any claim that the action reflects a guilty demeanor. So the removal of a million tons of rubble from the scene for purposes of aiding search and rescue (initially), infrastructure repair, suppression of fires and mitigation of the environmental hazard they caused, and facilitating eventual re-use of some of the most valuable real estate on earth, is quite relevant to the issue of guilty demeanor. In fact it makes it a non-issue.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
johnny karate said:
The topic of this thread is regarding possible arson at WTC6. My original question deals directly with that issue.



My evidence is that there has been absolutely no formal investigation of any type by anyone in any kind of official capacity into the alleged arson of WTC6. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, my point stands uncontested.

So back to my original question(s) that you keep ducking in a rather cowardly fashion:

If the collapse of WTC6 was the result of arson, why has this obvious and startling fact not been discerned and/or revealed by a single professional investigator or law enforcement official on the entire planet? Why is it that you seem to be the only one who has been able to figure this out?
Click to expand...

Your question is not relevant to the evidence I've provided, except to the extent that it bolsters guilty demeanor.
 
Myriad said:
Tens of millions of Americans haul their trash to the curb every week, in containers that are quite conveniently sized and shaped for holding and concealing dead bodies. By your standards that gives them all a guilty demeanor that juries would find very convincing, leading to easy conviction. So, when do the trials start? Are we all going to be tried at once, or one at a time?

Actually, a perfectly sensible and expected reason for taking an action nullifies any claim that the action reflects a guilty demeanor. So the removal of a million tons of rubble from the scene for purposes of aiding search and rescue (initially), infrastructure repair, suppression of fires and mitigation of the environmental hazard they caused, and facilitating eventual re-use of some of the most valuable real estate on earth, is quite relevant to the issue of guilty demeanor. In fact it makes it a non-issue.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

smug retorts like that by people with guilty demeanor are easy convictions for prosecutors. An innocent person would face the evidence and explain it, rather than act like they were guilty.
 
OK Galileo, then why don't you file a lawsuit since your evidence according to you is air tight? Why are you sitting on an internet forum instead of taking action? It should hold up in a court of law right?
 
Galileo said:
Your question is not relevant to the evidence I've provided, except to the extent that it bolsters guilty demeanor.
Click to expand...

Of course it's relevant to the evidence you've provided in that it brings into question the validity of said evidence.

If no professional investigator or law enforcement official on the entire planet has discerned and/or revealed this evidence you claim to have uncovered, it indicates that perhaps this evidence exists only in your mind.

And your constant dodging of my question indicates you are aware of this.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
OK Galileo, then why don't you file a lawsuit since your evidence according to you is air tight? Why are you sitting on an internet forum instead of taking action? It should hold up in a court of law right?
Click to expand...

I don't have standing to file, since I don't live in New York. Why don't you file it, since you like to volunteer work out to other people.
 
johnny karate said:
Of course

If no professional investigator or law enforcement official on the entire planet has discerned and/or revealed this evidence you claim to have uncovered, it indicates that perhaps this evidence exists only in your mind.
Click to expand...

You make assertions without evidence. What's you evidence for this assertion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom