• 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

Illuminator
Galileo
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
3,368
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
 
I am confused. Are you suggesting that someone went inside of WTC6 and started the fire with a match?
 
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...

Life is too short to spend time reading such drivel. You've finally earned 'ignore'.
 
The way I see it, if an arsonist is lucky enough to have all evidence of his crime obliterated by having an adjacent burning 110-story skyscraper unexpectedly collapse onto the building he just set fire to, he's simply going to get away with it. That kind of luck cannot be overcome and is not likely to be repeated, so you might as well just let it be.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
jhunter1163 said:
Can anyone think of any other event that day that might have spread flaming debris in the area? Like, maybe, I don't know, perhaps a plane crash or something?
Click to expand...

Yea. Right. From holographic planes. Sheesh!
 
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.
 
Galileo said:
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.
Click to expand...

NWO agents started it. DUH.
 
IF WTC 6 was arson then why wasn't it ablaze until after the collapse of the towers? It had a gigantic hole from roof to basement, meaning whatever debris that hit it came from high up the towers... What would the proposed arsonist gain from setting a building on fire that is damaged beyond repair?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
IF WTC 6 was arson then why wasn't it ablaze until after the collapse of the towers? It had a gigantic hole from roof to basement, meaning whatever debris that hit it came from high up the towers... What would the proposed arsonist gain from setting a building on fire that is damaged beyond repair?
Click to expand...

Peruggia said it was "fully involved with fire" BEFORE the North tower fell. That's why I posted this.
 
Viper Daimao said:
WTC1 was on fire. That's part of the reason why it collapsed. Remember that plane that hit it?
Click to expand...

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

Or it was set on fire by burning debris falling from WTC1 before WTC1 collapsed, or by burning debris from the impact of flight 175 into WTC2, or by burning debris from the collapse of WTC2 that fell through the roof of WTC6 whereas other debris mainly glanced off the facade of WTC1, or the witnesses who say they saw WTC6 on fire got their recollections wrong with regard to the sequence of events as a result of the extraordinarily high stresses they were under on the day. Don't forget those possibilities.

Dave

ETA: From Peruggia's account:

Again, you know, at this point things get a little cloudy. I was on Vesey and West. I looked up, I saw the north tower fully involved. I saw number 6 World Trade Center fully involved with fire. I started to make my way to the command post when I heard that horrible sound again, you know, that whining screeching jet engine. I looked up and at that point I knew the north tower was coming down.
Click to expand...
​

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.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Or it was set on fire by burning debris falling from WTC1 before WTC1 collapsed, or by burning debris from the impact of flight 175 into WTC2, or by burning debris from the collapse of WTC2 that fell through the roof of WTC6 whereas other debris mainly glanced off the facade of WTC1, or the witnesses who say they saw WTC6 on fire got their recollections wrong with regard to the sequence of events as a result of the extraordinarily high stresses they were under on the day. Don't forget those possibilities.

Dave
Click to expand...

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

:eye-poppi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom