Duane Daman Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Keep looking ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 With your eyes open this time .. Anyone who thinks that WTC 6 collapsed because of "falling debris" is either a blind fool or a government disinformation agent ... Right Len ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 I said AFTER WTC2 COLLAPSED, not after both towers. WTC2 collapsed, WTC6 roof fully intact. That damage to WTC6 didn't happen until WTC1 collapsed 84 minutes after than Jack claims it exploded. I rest my case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Falling debris ( no matter what time it did or didn't fall ) would not have caused explosions to go off in WTC 6 ( heard by witnesses on the scene ) , nor would it have created that massive crater and in the middle of the building either . I rest my case . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Falling debris ( no matter what time it did or didn't fall ) would not have caused explosions to go off in WTC 6 ( heard by witnesses on the scene ) , nor would it have created that massive crater and in the middle of the building either .I rest my case . What are you resting it on? The pile of steaming crap coming from your keyboard? The photos and film porve you wrong. And after you spend some time watching 110 story buildings crash onto other buildings, then and only then might your steaming words be taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Not a peep from Brazil. Is Len starting to see the light? Ha ha ha ha ha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 (edited) Not a peep from Brazil. Is Len starting to see the light? Ha ha ha ha ha. No Ron but I haven't had time. Not much to denunk really since he doesn't source any of his claims and spends about half his time "debunking" the ASCE/FEMA report which was superceeded by the NIST report. He also repeatedly conflated the 9/11 C and ASCE reports which makes we wonder if he ever read either one. Many of his claims are false for example it's simply not true that the "towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft," there design was reviewed and it was determined it could withstand a single impact from a 707. The is dispute about whether this study calculated for aplane at approach speed or 600 mph but the lead engineer says it was the latter. It also should be noted that although they attempt to obscure this fact the last time Pegelow worked on the structure of a building was as a recently graduated unlicensed intern. Edited September 25, 2007 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Falling debris ( no matter what time it did or didn't fall ) would not have caused explosions to go off in WTC 6 ( heard by witnesses on the scene ) Please list the witnesses and provide citations What about the witnessses who were IN and around the building after it was supposedly zapped. Also expalin how an energy beam would cause explosions and cause the building materials to be ejected , nor would it have created that massive crater and in the middle of the building either . Why not?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 I was referring not just to the engineer but the comments by me and Jack. Someone wanted to be sure the towers stunningly came down. Damage and casualties from planes wasn't enough (though that's all that that mastermind OBL ostensibly expected). They came down in picture-perfect fashion. We can argue endlessly about the how. Only a real investigation could answer that. The fact is, it happened, and in a way, to repeat, that was "too good to be true." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 No offence Ron but it didn't seem to me that you or Jack made relevent points that we haved discussed alread. Pegelow's claims are the subject of the thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack the thread. You're off the hook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 (edited) It looks like the one's defending the official government version of 9/11 will do just about anything to pretend to win the argument . Posted for Jack . Edited September 25, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 It's amazing how desperately Jack is trying to cling to this wtc6 explosion story even after it's been torn to shreds. Even other CTs say it's bogus. But Jack will do anything to dismiss the evidence. Jack, notice how the street and the roof of the building near the bottom center of the image are similar brightness levels. Are they fake too, or could it just be that the sun is in the right position at 10am (southeast in the sky) to reflect off all of those flat, level surfaces in the direction of the camera (northwest of the WTC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Don't pretend that photographs can't be altered or completely faked ... All you have to do is to look at the Apollo photos to see that . Instead of continuing to bash Jack and his research , why don't you supply the source of where you got your suspicious photograph from ? ... Then we will all be able to better determine if it's real or not . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 (edited) Right click the image, choose properties. Here's one from your photobucket account Duane. Note that there is absolutely no smoke visible coming from the roof of WTC6. Edited September 25, 2007 by Kevin M. West 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