Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Arson in WTC 6

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-9.jpg
Impact damage to WTC 6

By Rolf Lindgren and Dr. Kevin Barrett, http://www.barrettforcongress.us

9/11 skeptics harp on the obvious controlled demolition of Word Trade Center Building 7, the biggest smoking gun of 9/11. And they often discuss the only slightly less obvious demolitions of the Twin Towers. But they rarely discuss evidence for bombs and arson in other buildings of the World Trade Center complex.

According to the testimony of John Peruggia:

"I saw 6 World Trade Center fully involved with fire." Peruggia describes a fire after the South Tower, WTC 2, falls at 9:59 a.m., but before the North Tower, WTC 1 falls at 10:28 a.m. The fire in WTC 6 was ostensibly started by flying debris from WTC 2. Based on Peruggia’s timeline, WTC 6 was "fully involved with fire" by the midway point between the Twin Tower collapses. So WTC 6 was "fully involved with fire" by 10:15 AM. [Note to no-plane shills, on page 6, Peruggia describes airplane parts he sees from the first plane crash.]



Also testifying about fire, smoke, and explosions in WTC 6 is EMP Patricia Ondrovic. She describes fleeing immediately after the collapse of WTC 2 and running into a building on Vesey Street (WTC-6) where "there was smoke, there was debris, there was everything flying around" and where "stuff's blowing up." Suspiciously, her testimony is redacted on pages 9, 12, and 13.



Despite the censorship of the official oral history, you can get her full story here about the explosions in WTC-6 she witnessed as she was fleeing the destruction of the first collapsing Tower: "I tried to run into the lobby of 6 World Trade, but there were federal police -- maybe 4 to 6 of them -- standing in the open doorways. As I tried to run in, they wouldn't let me, waving me out, telling me 'you can't come in here, keep running.' As I turned to start running west again, I saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that 'chase' in pattern."

WTC 6 was about 400 feet from WTC 2 and mostly screened by WTC 1. It supposedly caught fire from the flying debris. Yet WTC 1, which is only a little over 100 feet away from WTC 2 and not screened, did not catch on fire from flying debris. The only fires in WTC 1 were above the 95th floor of where the plane hit.

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.

This chart shows how little of WTC 6 was exposed to flying debris from WTC 2.

Chart of locations of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 6

Assuming that debris from building collapses cause fires, WTC 1 should have caught on fire, and WTC 6 should not have caught on fire. If WTC 6 did catch on fire, only a small part of it should have been in flames by 10:15.

The eyewitnesses to arson and/or explosives in WTC 6 complement the eyewitnesses of explosives in WTC 7 (Barry Jennings and Michael Hess) and WTC 1 (William Rodriguez and others).

Other Suspicious WTC 6 Facts



* No steel or rubble from WTC 6 was preserved for scientific analysis.

* NIST has not done a study of WTC 6.

The arson hypothesis for WTC 6 has been tested for accuracy at the JREF "debunker" forums:

Arson in WTC 6?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117389

The JREFers are the most able and informed "debunkers" (not saying much), yet even the JREF army of debunkers could not muster a single good rebuttal of the arson in WTC 6 hypothesis.

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.

The fires in WTC 5 are suspicious as well, and worthy of further investigation.

"We're getting ready to PULL building 6!"

Pulling WTC 6

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6227966981786417824&ei=V5u0SLHtFo32-gHdrsCHDQ&q=pull+wtc+6&hl=en

Written by Rolf Lindgren and Dr. Kevin Barrett

Source:http://www.barrettforcongress.us/

2 comments:

  1. Photo evaluation of WTC 6.
    Seems conclusive to me.
    http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies115.htm
    http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies116.htm
    http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies117.htm
    http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies117a.htm
    http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies118.htm
    http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies118x.htm

    http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies118a.htm
    http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies119.htm
    http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies120.htm
    http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies121.htm
    http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies122.htm
    http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies123.htm

    ReplyDelete
  2. thanks,
    I've bookmarked the home page for future reference.

    ReplyDelete