Right could one of our debunking friends please explain the damage to wtc 6 in the following picture....





It was taken before any towers had fell. The planes could not have caused this. Id say this is smoking gun type evidence of ground level bombs.

Also post collapse we have:



What the fuck caused that hole. Its straight as a die.

I can't see the pics.

I see the pictures, but not the damage.

You dont see damage? Are you blind?

Momoka is a troll. Ignore "it".

Good advice killtown. Do we have an ignore button here? If not I will just not reply.

Unfortunately no. I'll ask if we can get one.

I see a lot of black spots in the windows of the building on the right. Is that what you mean? Is that broken glass? The picture's a bit fuzzy.

If that's broken glass, then I assume the black windows in the left building are blown out, am I right? I fully accept that the is damage, but it's hard for me to see what that damage actually consists of. Are you referring to the windows, or am I just blind and missing something obvious?

I'm fairly certain the problem here is on my end, I mean no attack or offense.

Half the windows in building 6 are gone. That wasn;t caused by the planes. Hence bombs did it. Hence 911 was an inside job

Check your PMs please momoka

Ah, okay. It was hard to tell that from the picture.

This looks like it's more of a technical question than I'm fitted to answer. I wonder if it might have been the shockwave from the explosion that damages the window, or perhaps small pieces of debris, but I think I might want to step out of this thread, at least until I have more information, rather than saying something wrong and making myself look stupid.

But this is WTC 6, right? It didn't collapse. Was it supposed to be a CD for that building too, and they botched it?

And, accepted. I come off as abrasive sometimes (and by sometimes I mean always), but I don't generally mean to be an asshole. When I'm going out of my way to attack someone, trust me, you'll know. B)

To be fair I think killtown is mistaken about you. I dont think your a jref troll. There are some despicable ones here but not you.

Dont leave the thread please.

My understanding of the photo is maybe the basement bombs some people described did it.

It couldnt be the planes.

So what was the purpose in bombing WTC6 again? The government knew that planes wouldn't bring down the towers, so they put bombs in them to make them collapse. That I get. Okay.

But considering building 6 is sitting a couple feet away from a 110 story building that's set to come down, what would be the purpose in bombing it?

If you had waited a minute einstein you would have seen my assertion that the bombs reported in the basement of the complex did it.

So if bombs didnt do it what did?

I'm not leaving the thread because of Killtown. I'm leaving the thread because I have little of value to add to it. Lots of questions, and no answers. If I think of something to say, I'll be back with it.

Could a basement bomb blow out a window on the fourth floor (left building), and not the window beneath it? Were the nonbroken windows cracked? And, again, a basement bomb in WTC 6? Was that building supposed to be destroyed, and the CD crew botched it? Was there something specifically in the basement? Did anyone report explosions in WTC 6 a building in which we (the Litoas) wouldn't expect there to be explody noises?

See? Lots of questions, but no real answers.

Well someone did report bombs there but im not suggesting that they bombed building six. I just dont think all those windows could be broken by a plane crash a hundred stories up. It had to be something ground level.

For some reason the pre-collapse picture isn't loading, so I can't see exactly what damage was done before hand. I could speculate falling debris, the shockwave of the explosion.

As far as post-collapse, if there were no giant gaping holes made by the bombs in the basement before the collapse, I don't see why they would make them after the collapse. Those I would most definitely chalk up to debris. I would really see no point in setting off a few bombs in building 6 as WTC1 was collapsing.

Agreed but that hole looks mighty odd.

If you get to see the first picture it really is half of the windows on the west face of building six blown out. How a plane in a different builing 1000 ft up could do that I dont know.

But we know 911 was an inside job anyway so these are just the odds and ends o be tied up.

Well if there was damage to any side of the building, I would expect it to be the west or south faces, as those were the ones facing the towers.

And what is going to be done with that knowledge? What's the game plan?

Well everyone knows kennedy wasnt shot by oswald but there isnt much we can do about that either.

Knowledge is power though. The more people we wake up, the less power the scumbags who did 911 have.

There is really no mystery to the WTC 6 hole:

all i see is "user posted image" but no image..

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Agrh! My eyes!!!

The stupid!! It burns!!!


I couldn't help notice that the WTC itself, except for the windows, looks completely undamaged by a "bomb".
Are you assuming that the bomb was placed in WTC6, or is it some kind of special bomb that only damages adjacent buildings?

If a bomb went off, the purpose would be to weaken the strukture of the building, right? A bomb that strong would have caused some more damage than just a few broken windows.

And finally, did anybody report bombs going of right when the planes hit, or immediately after? I'm not talking about people in the basement or high up in the building. I'm talking about people on the street, or on the ground floor, who could see a bomb going off.

I suggest that debris from the planecrash itself caused the broken windows. Either some of the vast amount of aluminum panels that were torn off, or the plane parts themselves. could have caused the broken windows. I'm sure you're familiar with scaffoldrider's pictures?

No... You assume that Kennedy was shot by Oswald, probably because the only information on the topic that you have read, comes from conspiracy websites and "JFK".

There's good evidence that Oswald alone killed Kennedy with his three shots, if you'd care to discuss this, I suggest we do it in another thread.

Please present your good evidence

OK! Seperate thread in the lounge!

Your thread awaits here

Heres a close up of the damage to the windows in the lobby, the glass seems to have sattered and blown outward over a number of feet.



Here the damage to the marble walls in the lobby

I don't see any burning, scorchmarks or anything else that would indicate a bomb.
Unless it's a special CIA bomb, that only shatters glass and marble.

Besides, wasn't it thermite that brought down the towers? :P

Your right there is no scortch marks, so we can rule out a fire ball down the elevator shafts can't we ?

Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center
suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both
towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday.
The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to
be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures,
said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology.

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the
airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some
explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the
towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former
director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing
Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and
the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and
other structures.

Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on
national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse
of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions
used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for
something from the plane to trigger an event like that,"
Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.

Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on
a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the
Pentagon. He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president
for administration and finance, were en route to an office
building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded
research programs at Tech.

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the
detonations could have been caused by a small amount
of explosive, he said. "It could have been a relatively small
amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero
said. The explosives likely would have been put in more
than two points in each of the towers, he said.

< ROMERO SAID THAT IF HIS SCENARIO
IS CORRECT, THE DIVERSIONARY ATTACK
WOULD HAVE BEEN THE COLLISION OF
THE PLANES INTO THE TOWERS >

The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent
with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said. "One of the
things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack
and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate
an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency
personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion,
he said. Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the
diversionary attack would have been the collision of the
planes into the towers.

Tech President Dan Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had
NOT been asked to take part in the investigation into the
attacks. Tech often assists in forensic investigations
into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar
explosions and studying the effects.

----------------------------------

Of course he was made to retract all of this and told to tow the line a week later.

The one thing to take from the above is the fact that he says "It could have been a relatively small
amount of explosives placed in strategic points," totally blowing out the water the argument that t would take lot's of explosives and taken alot ot people to place them in the building, which is ofton used by the debunker.

Good point reggie. I would also be interested to hear how the jet fuel down the shafts knocked marble off the wall.

No... He retracted it, because unlike most people in here, he is a professional with the ability to realize that he was mistaken.

That's the difference between an expert and a conspiracy theorists.

An expert weighs the evidence, and draws a conclusion based on that evidence.
If the evidence can't support that conclusion, he retracts his conclusion.

A conspiracy theorist allready has his conclusion ready, and uses the evidence that he believes will fit.
If that evidence is wrong, he jumps to the next bit of evidence that can support his assumptions.

I don't see why windows in the lobby would have blown out as a result of the plane impact almost a quarter of a mile above them, considering windows closer to the impact stayed in tact.

Blown out windows are common around where a bomb blast has taken place, it's not nessercery for the bomb to be in the lobby to cause this damage.

I suppose Peter Power did the same thing after the statements he made on live tv and radio on the day of 7/7?

Its amazing how when your witnesses change their story its in light of new evidence but when william rodriguez changes it it is because he wants fame and money.

Yeh right, he wasn't told to tow the official line was he? christ some people are gullible.

anyway, like i say what you can take from his statement is the fact it wouldn't have taken many explosives to bring the building down.Therefore it blows outta the water the theory that it would take lots of people to be involved.

He retracted his statement a week later, is that enough time to fully investigate and dispute his initial theory ? no but it's enough time for someone to tell him to change his theory and make it public that his initial conclusion of explosives was wrong.

hehe wept, some people are gullible.

Worse still is the paper on the collapse that debunkers throw at us by Bazant. It was submitted on 13th September 2001 and the author hadn't looked at a single piece of evidence.

The double standards are mind boggling.

Yeh and when Dr Steve Jones come forward and speaks out with his hypothesis he's "just a stupid mormon, he knows nothing about physics" etc, and we get accused of character bashing.

I love it when the "critical thinkers" slag Fetzer off. They fail to mention hes a Professor of the Philosophy of Science and has taught critical thinking courses for 30 years.