Arson in WTC 6?

[Dr Adequate]

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.

You do not say why this is "evidence of arson", presumably because it isn't.

 

[Mancman]

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.

Here's the shot in question:

Unfortunately, your magic oval appears in thin air later on in a different segment:

It is, without question, the head of a streetlight.

All of this time, Magz was fooled by a light. Totally wrong again. Who could have imagined that?

 

[leftysergeant]

Here's the shot in question:
[qimg]http://i38.tinypic.com/nxm6au.jpg[/qimg]

Unfortunately, your magic oval appears in thin air later on in a different segment:
[qimg]http://i35.tinypic.com/14iirz5.jpg[/qimg]

It is, without question, the head of a streetlight.

All of this time, Magz was fooled by a light. Totally wrong again. Who could have imagined that?

It changes shape. Looks more like a pigeon.

 

[Mancman]

It changes shape. Looks more like a pigeon.

But these two shots are from different locations, minutes apart. The shape change is due to the poor quality capture (moving camera, compressed video etc). The object does not move.

See the video from which the 2nd image was taken, as the camera pans at 9:39 you can see the base of the lamp post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-3ZOEXxdYg

 

[Galileo]

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.

in law, its known as "guilty demeanor", a very well established legal principle. People who hide evidence are usually easy convictions for juries.

 

[theprestige]

in law, its known as "guilty demeanor", a very well established legal principle. People who hide evidence are usually easy convictions for juries.

Of course, in a court of law, you also have to show the jury the hidden evidence, as well as additional evidence that the accused hid it on purpose.

You can't just say "there's no body, therefore the accused is a murderer!" You have to find the body, and find the shovel with dirt from the grave on the blade and fingerprints from the accused on the handle. Then you can start suggesting that maybe the accused hid the body because he's the murderer.

 

[Galileo]

Of course, in a court of law, you also have to show the jury the hidden evidence, as well as additional evidence that the accused hid it on purpose.

You can't just say "there's no body, therefore the accused is a murderer!" You have to find the body, and find the shovel with dirt from the grave on the blade and fingerprints from the accused on the handle. Then you can start suggesting that maybe the accused hid the body because he's the murderer.

duh! The additional evidence is at the initial post.

 

[Galileo]

Here's the shot in question:
[qimg]http://i38.tinypic.com/nxm6au.jpg[/qimg]

Unfortunately, your magic oval appears in thin air later on in a different segment:
[qimg]http://i35.tinypic.com/14iirz5.jpg[/qimg]

It is, without question, the head of a streetlight.

All of this time, Magz was fooled by a light. Totally wrong again. Who could have imagined that?

that's a demolition charge going off early, more evidence. There is no "fire" as you say, in the picture.

 

[SDC]

in law, its known as "guilty demeanor", a very well established legal principle. People who hide evidence are usually easy convictions for juries.

Thank heavens! You are a lawyer with significant experience in dealing with juries. Or so you seem to claim.

Moi, my only experience is to serve on juries.

Bing! You lost the jury. We got back into the jury room, rolled our eyes collectively, and said to one another, "How long do we have to sit here?"

More seriously, nuts. When I have served on juries we have been very serious about the existence of evidence.

 

[Dr Adequate]

in law, its known as "guilty demeanor", a very well established legal principle. People who hide evidence are usually easy convictions for juries.

Can you show me one case where the jury convicted someone of arson on the grounds that, after investigation, the debris was cleared from the site and disposed of?

What, in your opinion, should they have done with a million tons of rubble?

 

[Dave Rogers]

that's a demolition charge going off early, more evidence. There is no "fire" as you say, in the picture.

And there, in a nutshell, are both the intellectual dishonesty and the poor analytical skills of the truth movement laid bare. You see a blurred dark-coloured oval on a single frame of an out-of-focus video clip, decide that you want it to be a demolition charge, then state that your fantasy is true despite the fact that (a) the object in question doesn't look in the slightest like a demolition charge, (b) it looks very much like an out-of-focus street light and (c) it doesn't even support your hypothesis. All you've done is pick the first lie to occur to you and state it as fact.

Dave

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I am confused. Are you suggesting that someone went inside of WTC6 and started the fire with a match?

They musta run out of exploding thermite.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

that's a demolition charge going off early, more evidence. There is no "fire" as you say, in the picture.

There's a batch of brain cells dying early. There's no thought in that conclusion as you say, in the brain.

 

[leftysergeant]

that's a demolition charge going off early, more evidence. There is no "fire" as you say, in the picture.

That has to be one of the most absurd comments I have ever seen posted on this forum.

How come we do not see the damage that it did on any of the subsequent photos or video of that face of the tower? You better come up with some documentation that it did some damage which remained visible or wear it like a cast iron albatross. It looks nothing like any explosive charge i have ever seen, and i assure you that I have seen a lot more of them than have ten of you garden-variety twoofers and WACoffs.

 

[Galileo]

That's all ya got?

Such a smug retort of your guilty demeanor would get you convicted by any reasonable jury. You have no explanation as to why WTC 6 was on fire from WTC 1. I do. I have a witness who can testify regarding the explosions there.

Game, set, match!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That's all ya got?

Such a smug retort of your guilty demeanor would get you convicted by any reasonable jury.

I'm still looking for that evidence he's hiding that prompted you to make your original comment...

That comment highlights your hypocrisy, and if not hypocrisy something lower:

that's a demolition charge going off early, more evidence. There is no "fire" as you say, in the picture.

You're making up evidence and intentionally downplaying existing evidence that does not suit your claim. This does not fly in the court of justice...

Game, set, match!

What game? What game is there for you of for that matter, anybody to win? I thought 9/11 and discussion regarding whose responsible wasn't a game.

 

[johnny karate]

Galileo, 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?

 

[Galileo]

I'm still looking for that evidence he's hiding that prompted you to make your original comment...

That comment highlights your hypocrisy, and if not hypocrisy something lower:


You're making up evidence and intentionally downplaying existing evidence that does not suit your claim. This does not fly in the court of justice...



What game? What game is there for you of for that matter, anybody to win? I thought 9/11 and discussion regarding whose responsible wasn't a game.

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.

 

[Galileo]

Galileo, 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?

what evidence do you have that they've read my forum post?

 

[johnny karate]

what evidence do you have that they've read my forum post?

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?