• 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:
Are you calling John Peruggia a liar? He was a brave first responder.
Click to expand...

Half of the survivors of the Titantic claimed the ship broke in half. The other half claimed it sank whole. Are you going to call half of them liars?

Do yourself a favor kid, go do some studies on eyewitness testimony and maybe you will start to understand why you aren't being taken seriously.
 
Galileo said:
I can't remember anymore, you make a lot of unsupported assertions. You make so many, you can't even remember your own assertions.
Click to expand...

Whatever you say, champ. Keep reaching for that dream!

Meanwhile, you can't find a single credible person on the entire planet that has drawn the same conclusions you have.

If you need me, I'll be over here laughing at you with everyone else in a place we call "reality" .
 
Last edited:
Galileo said:
non-responsive.
Click to expand...
Your post is a lie, what do you expect. Barrett has insane ideas, making him appear to be completely nuts. Is Barrett insane?

The arson hypothesis for WTC 6 has been tested for accuracy at the JREF "debunker" forums:
Click to expand...
Barrett is not insane he is just stupid; as in too dumb to make a rational idea on 9/11.

Because WTC 6 was on fire, it provided a smokescreen for other events on 9/11. The smoke from WTC 6 obscured explosions on the lower floors of WTC 1, and obscured the south face of WTC 7.
Click to expand...
Barrett is not insane he is just paranoid.

That is the funniest paper; but so pathetic! Those guy are pure stupid on this topic! Great find, you have shown why 9/11 truth is the number one example for stupid. Can something be pathetic and funny?
 
Last edited:
MaGZ said:
I have never believed the story that the collapse of WTC 1 caused the fires in WTC 7. It really makes no sense. WTC 1 was mostly ash and steel that fell onto WTC 7 an unlikely sorce for fire. The burning floors and above in WTC 1 fell slightly forward landing dead center on top of WTC 6 creating the hole in the middle of the building.

WTC 7 had another source for its fires. It wasn’t WTC 1, WTC 2 or bombs going off in the building.

I have presented photos on this forum taken from NJ of WTC 7 on fire in the areas of the 12th and 14th floors before the collapse of the Towers.
Click to expand...

Are you not aware that ash and embers are a big threat in a forest fire?
Hot ash can indeed start a new fire!
Dont believe me..
Use your barbque grill to cook up some stakes.
Once you think the fire is done say 2 hours after you cook...grab your shovel
And get a scope of ash,now put said shovel of ash on lets say a pile of pine needles.......care to guess what happens?
 
Galileo said:
The question mark has been removed!

Arson in WTC 6
http://www.barrettforcongress.us/
Click to expand...


\

You really want to link your self to this guy?You must not of read it cause he does not agree with you!!!!!!!



Is it possible that the 9/11-period TRIPOD II bio/chem-terrorism-attackexercise scenario involved anthrax? Yes, it is:

On Sept. 11, Janette MacKinlay lived in a fourth floor apartment overlooking what was soon to become the ‘pit’ of the WTC. Her neighbor and close friend Bruno told her that he was pulled into a bank lobby off the street next to the WTC towers by an FBI agent on the morning of Sept. 11 to protect them from the dust cloud from the collapsing tower, and was told by the agent that “We were told this was going to happen and that it would involve anthrax.” Another FBI agent told a woman about to enter the NBC Bldg. that she should leave because “there are explosives in the bldg as well as in the WTC.” The FBI clearly was pre-alerted because their offices were in WTC 7, which was pre-wired for a controlled demolition take down that day. MacKinlay had the presence of mind to collect the dust from the cloud that poured into her 4th floor apartment, and it is this dust that physicist Steven Jones has analyzed and in which he found military-grade thermate as well as other high explosives, proving the presence of controlled demolition charges throughout the towers to which ‘Al Qaeda’ could not have had access to place. Though no anthrax has been reported in the dust – though it may not yet have been tested for


Besides the dude is crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
I can't wait until one of the attorneys who posts here comments on Galileo's legal theory of "Guilty Demeanor".
I am getting a message from the Great Beyond. It is the ghost of the original Galileo telling me to please not associate him with a certain idiot who is ruining his good name.....
 
Any jury that convicts someone based on "guilty demeanor" will then have to watch that conviction be overturned on appeal while they become laughingstocks.

This isn't like someone being murdered and then someone who had means and motive being found to have destroyed evidence this is more like someone dying of cancer and then someone else being charged with killing them because they had the body cremated.
 
Galileo said:
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...

The debris did not fall on the top of WTC1. It struck aluminum-clad exterior elements.

What fell on WTC6 fell on the roof, which is covered with materials that do catch fire when they get hot enough. There were also burning cars on the street that could have spread fire to surrounding buildings.

When the south tower fell, it opened holes in the roof so the fire could get right inside with all of that ammunition.

Fire spreads rather quickly through that.
 
Travis said:
Any jury that convicts someone based on "guilty demeanor" will then have to watch that conviction be overturned on appeal while they become laughingstocks.
Click to expand...
I've seen moan hoax believers claim as evidence that the Apollo 11 astronauts "didn't look happy" at the press conference, that they looked like people who were lying to America. I pointed out that was inconsistent with protecting the conspiracy for 40 years to date. He never responded.
 
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...


Do you have any witnesses to when WTC6 caught fire, can you prove it did not start before WTC2 collapsed? Is it not possible that burning debris from the impact on WTC 1 fell onto WTC6 and started the fires?

Or that the different designs of the two buildings may have allowed burning debris to set one on fire but not the other? WTC6 had large windows and few exterior columns whilst WTC1 had small windows and closely spaced columns.
 
phunk said:
Don't feed the zombies.
Click to expand...

It seems that if someone posts a link to a dead thread in a currently active thread, people reading through the active thread click on the link, then after a while forget they are in a dead thread and respond.

If I posted more I probably would have accidentally done it a few times.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Or that the different designs of the two buildings may have allowed burning debris to set one on fire but not the other? WTC6 had large windows and few exterior columns whilst WTC1 had small windows and closely spaced columns.
Click to expand...
Fire can spread rather quickly through an ammunition locker. Have to take that into consideration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom