• 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:
making fun of 3000 dead people is not funny, nor appropriate for this forum.
Click to expand...
Does this mean you will stop posting questions of lies so you will not of making fun of those who died on 9/11? You are the one who is making fun of those who died with your manufactured ideas and questions based on false information, hearsay, and lies.

The terrorists take credit and do not lie like 9/11 truth, when will you be able to do better?

Happy 4th of July hearsay fantasy idea truther man.
 
beachnut said:
Does this mean you will stop posting questions of lies so you will not of making fun of those who died on 9/11? You are the one who is making fun of those who died with your manufactured ideas and questions based on false information, hearsay, and lies.

The terrorists take credit and do not lie like 9/11 truth, when will you be able to do better?

Happy 4th of July hearsay fantasy idea truther man.
Click to expand...

you can throw insults all you like, but you still don't explain why WTC 6 started on fire and WTC 1 didn't.
 
Galileo said:
Peruggia said the fire was in WTC 6, not WTC 1 (except for the top above floor 95).

We also have continuous camera shots of WTC 1 until it fell, and no fires are present, below floor 95.

We also have eyewitnesses from outside WTC 1 from all four sides and none saw a fire.

Tell me where you think the WTC 1 fire was.
Click to expand...

Actually there was a fire in WTC 1 about a third of the way up the building on the east side. I mentioned this in a past thread; I saw footage of this in a documentary.
The footage shows emergency personnel putting someone in an ambulance and the camera goes up the east side of WTC 1. You have to record the documentary and run the footage slow to see the huge burnt black oval area on WTC 1.
I have speculate that shrapnel from the missile caused this fire in WTC 1 and likely the fires in WTC 6 and WTC 7.

I think this might have been from the four hour National Geographic documentary.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Possibly but unlikely. The debris would have fallen onto the roof and would not have generated an engulfing fire in the entire building.

You also have to ask the question why did WTC 3 not catch on fire especially when the ejecting debris came from WTC 1 in its direction.
 
leftysergeant said:
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.
Click to expand...

She was experiencing exploding cars that got too hot and caused a chain reaction.
 
MaGZ said:
I have speculate that shrapnel from the missile caused this fire in WTC 1 and likely the fires in WTC 6 and WTC 7.
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi

Right. A 20 to 50lb warhead threw shrapnel over 300ft in the opposite direction to the missile's travel, and managed to have enough heat energy left over to penetrate a skyscraper and start an office fire...

Perhaps the shrapnel flew all that way on its flapping wings... :rolleyes:
 
MaGZ said:
Possibly but unlikely. The debris would have fallen onto the roof and would not have generated an engulfing fire in the entire building.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's a weak supposition in the light of WTC 5 - and later WTC 7 - being set aflame by falling debris. Plus, damage to building 6 from exterior columns falling from WTC 1 was clearly noted; it's just a matter of whether that observed damage was indeed caused prior to WTC 1's collapse, or during it.

MaGZ said:
You also have to ask the question why did WTC 3 not catch on fire especially when the ejecting debris came from WTC 1 in its direction.
Click to expand...

Some fires did happen to the top of building 3; the FEMA BPR specifically notes that the health club on the top floor was on fire. And this was a fire atttributed to the initial debris ejected by the jet's impact, not by the collapse of the north tower itself. Why the whole building itself didn't catch on fire is unknown; other buildings, like the Verizon building next to WTC 7, was also hit by debris from both building 7 and the north tower and did not catch fire, whereas parts of 90 West did and it was 2 blocks away. It's hard to say what all the factors are, but obviously there are factors above and beyond just distance/proximity. Anyway, why building 3 not becoming fully engulfed in flame is to be considered odd is something that escapes me; there could be a variety of reasons why neither building became fully aflame. From REF's work, I understand that 90 West's construction involved much more masonry, and that may have been a factor in it not completely going up in flames. This may be supposition, but perhaps there's a similar factor at play in the case of 3 World Trade. Or maybe by just random distribution, the debris that fell on WTC 3 was just not as aflame as what hit buildings 5 and 6. Who knows? Either way, if there's something suspicious about WTC not becoming fully engulfed in flame, it's not obvious. You should point it out yourself if you think there's something to discuss there.
 
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.
 
Why would there be a missile? The towers already got hit by two huge planes.
 
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...

You have presented nothing. Just junk. You know nothing about military aircraft or military armaments. You would not know a missile if it hit you on the head.

You are just a nasty little liar. I have forgotten more about AtoA missiles than you will ever know and I know your fantasy is rubbish. Many others here do to. I think you get some sick pleasure of being wrong all the time due to the bigotry you display. It must turn you on.

What a truly sad waste of the gift of life.
 
The topic is not WTC7 - do not be derailed into discussions of MaGZ's missile theories which have threads already underway.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
MaGZ said:
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...

I must have missed that. Care to show us again where you posted such evidence?
 
This WTC 6 thing is the fail safe for when the NIST WTC 7 report comes out. Once they get embarassed by that, we are going to start hearing "well what about the hotspots/fires that were in WTC6?" and " WTC was a back-up spookhouse in case WTC& was ever exposed etc...."

Bermas has even made the suggestion that WTC 6 was a part of this "sub-nuclear-3rd generation-super-thermate/thermite hybrid-government/NASA-developed, and top secret CD conspriacy."

you all just watch ;)
 
more evidence of arson:

no steel or other debris was preserved from WTC 6 to determine the cause of the fire that shouldn't have been.
 
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner: a clear and distinct statement that Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Presence.

Oh, happy days are here again.
 
Exactly. I've never seen the Tooth Fairy...therefore, the Tooth Fairy is alive and well and living in Santa Monica.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom