Jack White Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 (edited) Building Six is underinvestigated. Jack (graphic removed to make text revision) Edited August 10, 2009 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Building Six is underinvestigated.Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 I’ve lost track Jack is this the 3rd or 4th or 5th thread you’ve started making the same claim based on the same evidence? I can think of only two reasons for starting another. You don’t remember having started the previous ones OR You remember being thoroughly debunked on them and want to start a new hoping you won’t have your errors corrected this time. IF that was the reason you are being dishonest. You’re top two photos were obviously taken the afternoon of 9/11 (i.e. well after the collapses) because the western face of the Verizon building is in direct sunlight. In the uncropped photo the same can be said of the western faces of 7 WTC and WFC 3. This could only happen after solar noon which was at about 12:50 pm that day (I gave the exact time w/ a citation one the other threads) 6 WTC was not “blackened” is was a black to begin with, though since its finish was metallic appears to be gray in some photos. I posted numerous photos proving this in the earlier threads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 From Elm Street to New York, the illusion of filmic veracity... http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=5061 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 NIST photo proves no collapse from falling debris. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Are these both 767 engines? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 So Jack can you produce a source for the "6 WTC" photo? NIST did not research the collapses of 3 - 6 WTC. When was the photo taken? How can we be sure it is 6 WTC? How did you determine which floors were which? How did you determine that there was no WTC debris? - There are 3 parallel "beams" that might well be exterior columns If the damage was due an explosion in the basement why are all the remaining floors pointed downward? Why do you keep starting new 6 WTC threads? My guess it's because you keep getting thoroughly debunked want people to forget your errors. What is the source of your second engine photo? You realize neither is of a complete engine. What do you thin the side by side proves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 (edited) Are these both 767 engines?Jack Jack, I just suggest you post slightly lightened versions of those photos. Also [can't find at the moment - have so many] there is a photos of that 'same' engine at the Fresh Kills Landfill with two persons standing next to it, and it looks yet different - or matches more the one Jack put on the right, IMO. Alll seem too small - even when one considers the outer compression blades would have broken-off. In any case, why is the Govt. NOT showing us these engines and the serial numbers? What do they have to hide?! Found the other photo - slightly cropped. Have another that can't yet find that shows entire engine on ground. Here, Peter...the engines lightened slightly. If they represent "the same part" of an engine from 767s, they are NOT the same. Yes....that is the Murray engine compared to the Fresh Kills engine. I turned one upside down for comparison. Thanks for your answer to the the inane questions of the "Colby entity". I never read anything "he/it" writes, but saw it in your excellent reply to him/them. Jack Edited August 10, 2009 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 So Jack can you produce a source for the "6 WTC" photo? NIST did not research the collapses of 3 - 6 WTC. I'll let Jack answer for himself, but my thoughts on your scribblings..... True NIST did not examine collapse of WTC 6 and we should question why. They also didn't of WTC 7 - even more suspicious of a cover-up! Worst of all - their 'analysis of WTC 1 and 2 were only up to the 'moment' of collapse and not after when all the really 'strange' [by official explanation' events took place. I obtained the photo via the internet. That is all that "Colby" needs to know. I have my sources. He has his. He wants us to believe that NIST did not research the collapse of building 6...but they did...and when they found what happened, they chose to ignore it. When was the photo taken?How can we be sure it is 6 WTC? The photo was taken in September, 1991, but suppressed until recently. Or if "Colby" prefers to think I built a scale model in my basement, he will believe what he/it wants. I guess we cannot be "sure" of anything, can we? Is "Colby" doubting the NIST? How can we be sure you are Len Colby. It sure looks to me like WTC 6 and just this kind of mineutea is IMO used to distract from the real overall picture - a trick of the those who would like to not address the issues - by concentrating on the micro, micro details and ignore the main point. How did you determine which floors were which? These are obvious and you are only being provocative and trying to divert the topic and thread - as usual. Duuuh? There is an opening to the street at street level, and you can see the street outside. The two floors below had much taller ceilings and no daylight, because it was a two level garage used by the FBI/SS to park surveilance trucks and cars...you know, commercial looking trucks that had filming equipment inside for covert photography. So, counting both ways from the ground floor is elementary. Duuuuuuh! How did you determine that there was no WTC debris? -There are 3 parallel "beams" that might well be exterior columns If the damage was due an explosion in the basement why are all the remaining floors pointed downward? Why do you keep starting new 6 WTC threads? My guess it's because you keep getting thoroughly debunked want people to forget your errors. No identifiable TOWER debris can be seen in the photo. Speculation is not proof. I did not mention "a basement explosion". I am glad "Colby" called attention to the DOWNWARD force applied from ABOVE. That is VERY IMPORTANT! "Colby" ignored the melted steel I-beams and the MISSING PORTION OF THE BUILDING HAVING VANISHED. Never a post to Jack without a 'slam' [really a well-disguised ad hom] What is the source of your second engine photo? You realize neither is of a complete engine. What do you thin the side by side proves? The internet is the source of all my photos. This is a well known photo. I asked "Are both of these engines from a 767?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Jack, how many basement levels were there in WTC6? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Jack, how many basement levels were there in WTC6? The sources I have used said TWO basement levels. If there is evidence to the contrary, please cite it. Same sources also said the basements were a parking garage, though I have seen NO photos showing a parking garage entrance. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Are these both 767 engines?Jack Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Jack, how many basement levels were there in WTC6? The sources I have used said TWO basement levels. If there is evidence to the contrary, please cite it. Same sources also said the basements were a parking garage, though I have seen NO photos showing a parking garage entrance. Jack The entire complex had six The WTC also included Four and Five World Trade Center (4 and 5 WTC), both of which were nine-story buildings; the eight-story United States Customs House (6 WTC); and a 22-story hotel (3 WTC), all of which surrounded the Austin J. Tobin Plaza (the Plaza). Directly below the Plaza was the Concourse which consisted of a retail mall and transportation hub that provided pedestrian connections to the PATH trains to New Jersey and several subway lines operated by MTA/NYCT. There were six below-grade floors in the bathtub and three below-grade levels on the east side of the WTC Site, providing parking for approximately 2,000 cars, a system of freight servicing and loading, and significant infrastructure and utilities supporting the operation of the WTC's buildings and transportation facilities, including PATH. The six below-grade floor slabs also provided critical lateral stability for the slurry wall of the bathtub. http://www.panynj.gov/drp/pdfdocs/env/feis...ppendix_B-1.pdf pgs 11 – 12 So even IF Jack is corrected about the photo being from 6 and his ID of the levels there could potentially have been four floors of 1 & 6 WTC debris below that seen in his photo.. It also should be noted that the lobby was NOT at street level giving us one more floor of debris. Jack's photo only show a small section of the top of the interior debris pile obviously larger pieces would tend be futhur away from the remaining structure. http://www.theeuropeans.net/blog/trackback...ry070911-100443 And large amounts of 1 WTC debris did fall inside the building. Odd that Peter thinks the 9/23 NOAA photo does show significant debris but not long about he said due to his inability to buy proper glasses he could barely see the computer screen. Below is a blow up of the same photo with some of the perimeter column assemblies in and on the building circled. Similar items can be seen in Jack’s photo I can circle it if he and Jack have trouble seeing it Even Jim Hoffman a truther quoted by the likes of Fetzer Griffin and Gage says the obvious, i.e. 6 collapsed due to a 500,000 ton building collapsing on it. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc6_5.html It also should be noted that like Jack and Peter’s most photos of GZ debris don’t show what they would describe as “identifiable TOWER debris” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 As for the engines not all 767 used the same power plants. The 767-200ER (one of the flights) used 4 different models by 2 manufacturers GE and Pratt & Whitney and the 767-223 (the other) used 2 them (1 GE and 1 P&W) Odds are only 1 in 3 that the engine from one photo would be from the same plane as another Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Did the building have any open atrium spaces? Or did each floor cover the entire area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now