WTC 6

[Old and In the Way]

Lots of posts here on WTC1. WTC2, WTC7,Pentagon, and Shanksville crash. But very little about the very strange case of WTC6. I was reading a link on the Pentagon and the website had the following on WTC6. I'm not sure how accurate this is, as I've heard very little about (really nothing) about what happened with building 6. If the timing of this is accurate, I think this puts a nail in the OCT...

From: http://www.911studies.com

<>

<>

<>

<>

<>

<>

<>

<>

[Make7]

1. This video seems to contradict that presentation.

Go to http://www.question911.com/links.php and scroll down about half way, watch the video titled 911 In Plane Site Update for approximately the first four minutes.

- Make7

[mirandapriestly]

2. So the smoke was probably not from an explosion, but

from the collapse of the south tower, but I still think that the huge hole in the middle of wtc 6 does not look like it came from falling debris.

[Old and In the Way]

4. Key point here is timing.

This Mr. White is claiming that the smoke appears just after 175 hit the south tower. Unfortunately, there is no time reference on the CNN broadcast screen grab. However, it would be relatively easy to check what time Clancy was on CNN that morning.

The fact that the 2 holes in WTC6 are missing any debris in the crater is something significant, I think.

[Make7]

5. I couldn't find the transcript on CNN, but found this while searching:

 

8:52am PST

CNN is interviewing Tom Clancy, military storyteller, about the tragedy. approximately: "The first instinct of nature is self-preservation. The people who would throw their lives away like this are likely to have done it for religious reasons - they think there's something better waiting for them in the afterlife. So this points to islamic terrorists. But we must remember that Muslims believe in the same god that we do, and religious tolerance is at the core of our national beliefs."

http://www.links.net/daze/01/09/attack.html

Roughly matches the In Plane Site Update CNN footage.

- Make7

[Old and In the Way]

6. That would make it almost noontime on the Eastcoast

Well after all the attacks were finished. I think it would have been 8:52 EST which would have been prior to the 175 crash...in which case, that explosion would have been well before the 1st WTC collapse.

[Make7]

9. It's kinda strange that CNN doesn't have the transcript for that interview

They have one with Mr. Clancy later on that day - maybe if someone around here has a LexisNexis account they could do a search.

Be that as it may, did you watch the In Plane Site Update I mentioned in Post #1?

If you match up the the summary of what Mr. Clancy is saying from my last post with what he is actually saying during the CNN footage that the In Plane Site Update used, I think we can say the person that wrote out his chronology that day is describing that segment, which aired at 11:52am EST according to the time indicated.

The footage used for the In Plane Site Update shows the South Tower collapsing while Mr. Clancy was on the air. I don't see how the "explosion" could have been before the South Tower impact - unless Tom Clancy was on CNN less than 15 minutes after the North Tower impact saying almost the same exact thing. Doesn't seem very likely to me.

- Make7

[Old and In the Way]

10. I agree on that point about the pics in panel 4.....that is definitely

happening during the WTC collapse, not just before the 175 crash. I did watch In plane site site awhile back. see my other comments on this below. Kind of makes you wonder how a photo-expert would get this key part of the evidence so wrong. Misinformation?

[rman]

3. excellent catch

it would be nice if video footage of that explosion can be found.

[mirandapriestly]

7. This site deals with the same issue

They show smoke at ground level near wtc 6 when it doesn't look like wtc 2 was collapsing. Also, it shows broken windows on the far side of wtc6 , the side that faced away from wtc1 and was not in the fall line of any debris. Also suggests that the elevator blast was in an elevator that went to the sub floor and not to the impacted floor, (those elevators are so confusing!)

http://www.explosive911analysis.com/

[Old and In the Way]

8. Interesting pics.....the info on the elevators was illuminating too.

White's comparison shots in the 4th panel are BS, I think. Both pics show the WTC collapse underway. The 9:04 time on the left pic is wrong then, and the that cloud is missing on the right side pic completely, so I think that was photoshopped.

But the crater in WTC6 is a real mystery. I'd love to see an overhead shot of WTC6 before WTC2 went down. That would be very telling....if that crater existed before WTC2 collapsed, I think the whole OCT unravels. Of course, it could well have been "prepared" with some internal foundational charges, allowing the WTC1 debris field to finish it off. It's almost like the whole complex was razed........

[mirandapriestly]

11. I know there was street-level smoke unrelated to collapse

Here is that great eyewitness 9-11 video and at about 3:18 you can see smoke rising from street level . this is before the collapse and I have seen it in other videos too. This video is good, cuz it shows (starting after the impacts, unfortunately) uninterrupted views of the towers until they collapsed. So I know there was smoke that wasn't part of collapse and there were reports of an explosion, too.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911

I'm still trying to find an aerial wtc 6 photo after impact, not having much luck, though

[Make7]

13. perimeter column sections

Posted by Old and In the Way:

White's comparison shots in the 4th panel are BS, I think. Both pics show the WTC collapse underway. The 9:04 time on the left pic is wrong then, and the that cloud is missing on the right side pic completely, so I think that was photoshopped.

I think the reason the cloud is missing in the right hand picture is because it is taken from an slightly earlier point in the collapse. Both screen captures are likely real, but I do think it is somewhat misleading using a shot from the regular CNN channel and a shot from CNN International that has a different camera angle.

The claim that there is no debris in the crater is clearly false. As shown by these images:

?pic
?pic

There are numerous sections of the North Tower's perimeter wall in the crater. Whether or not this can account for the damage seen is certainly debatable. However, I would like to point out that there is a large gash in the top and West side of WTC5 seen in the second picture linked above. That gash was clearly made by perimeter column sections from the North Tower. Because of its closer proximity, WTC 6 would likely get hit by a significantly greater amount of debris. Enough debris to cause the damage seen? I'm not sure about that.

- Make7

[Old and In the Way]

15. What I find wierd about the WTC6 pics is the circular nature of

the partial building collapse. I could see a complete and irregular 1/2 round collapse pattern, but a well defined circular crater in the middle of the building seems quite odd. I'd think there should have been a lot more rubble in the holes...8 floors plus all the WTC2 debris that would have percipitated the WTC6 collapse, too. What's your take on the IR heat signature in that hole?

Regarding your point that the the RH pic is taken earlier in the collapse, I'm not sure about that. If anything, I think it shows WTC2 further along in the collapse cycle. There is no evidence of the dust cloud enveloping WTC7 in that pic that I can see. Maybe it's the angle that is distorting the perception, but LH pic shows the cloud blooming on the farside of WTC7....but no evidence at all of that in the LH pic which clearly is a better angle to see that detail.

[Make7]

17. My interpretation

I don't know that "well-defined circular crater" is how I would describe it.



For the large crater, it looks to me like much of the right and bottom edges are roughly straight lines parallel to the sides of the building. Part of the top edge appears to be a similar straight line.

There is quite a bit of debris in that hole, although I'm not sure how one would determine if it was a reasonable amount or not. My knowledge of WTC6's structure and foundation is almost non-existent, but more information might help us reach some conclusions. For instance, maybe the basement of this building was deeper than we are assuming - meaning the appearance of the amount of debris is not accurate. And maybe there were not as many internal supports in the area of the large crater - causing greater damage there than to the rest of the building. I don't know the answers - further research is certainly warranted.

Regarding the IR information. Let's review the graphic in the OP quickly:



Here are a few things that strike me as odd:

"Although of undocumented provenance..." - This is an interesting way to start a presentation of something factual. Typically when making a case for something, one tries to source the information used in order to gauge its accuracy.

"WTC7's base showed no residual heat..." - That isn't what USGS data shows in its thermal imaging done on 9/16/01. In the graphic below, the spots labeled A and B are in the area of WTC7.



The crater of WTC6 is approximately midway between points B and D. There is no indication of any heat there whatsoever. (More info available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov)

"And building six was never on fire..." - That simply does not appear to be the case.

"WTC 5 and WTC 6 were impacted by exterior column debris from WTC 1 that caused large sections of localized collapse and subsequent fires spread throughout most of the buildings." - (Source: FEMA)

My interpretation of the right-hand vs. left-hand pictures is this: the right-hand picture is showing the South Tower as the top of the building is collapsing - before the dust and debris hit the ground and spread out. Which is what I believe is seen in the left-hand picture - the dust cloud expanding after the building collapsed all the way to the ground. That's the way I see it anyway.

- Make7

[file83]

18. Healthy response there. The evidence you posted is solid.

WTC 6 simply caved in from the falling debris from above. There is nothing that was initially presented by the parent post than supports an explosion independent from WTC1&2 falling down on it.

[Make7]

25. Thanks.

I agree, the most reasonable explanation at this point is that the damage was caused by falling debris.

- Make7

[Old and In the Way]

20. You make some very solid points.

I still think the RH pic is further along in the event, but that's my subjective opinion. That's a much better overhead shot of the WTC6 damage. It certainly looks a lot less well defined, shape- wise. Still, the transition from total collapse to total standing is immediate. I guess I'd expect to see the collapse appearing more like the Pentagon where there are partial floors still in place...but that's a subjective opinion, too.

[Make7]

24. The appearance ot that crater is not exactly what I would expect either.

But I don't have a lot of other information to compare it to - there doesn't seem to be many cases of that much debris from a collapsing 110-story building falling on an eight story building that was right next to it.

I do know this much - those steel perimeter sections were not light and some of them fell a significant distance - there would be sufficient energy to cause lots of damage. Enough to account for what is seen? I'm not sure.

- Make7

[number6]

12. very interesting

:smoke:

[adolfo]

14. It is a Hoax

The mystery explosion was debunked. The video "In Plane Site" pushed this story along with the "Pod" hoax.

It was proven as disinformation.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html

[philb]

16. Explosion at WTC6 before WTC2 fell? firefighter

WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW
EMT PATRICIA ONDROVIC File No. 9 1 10048

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110048.PDF

En route to the alarm, I saw the two towers burning. We parked in the middle of Vesey Street between West and the West Side Highway. We took the stretcher and all the crash equipment out of the bus and we formed up alongside one of the buildings on Vesey. I don't remember which number it was. We were in a line of several other ambulances. Next to us was a St. Claire's ambulance and a Cabrini Ambulance.

I saw a police captain that I knew, and he came out to me. He said there's another plane headed our way, and they just blew up the Pentagon. Then the EMS captain said everyone grab your equipment, get to your vehicles and stay with your vehicles.

My partner and I grabbed our stretcher, went to put it in the back of our vehicle, and at that time, I think it was the lobby of the building behind us blew out.
Everybody started running, I didn't see him again that day. He got thrown one way, I got
thrown the other way. I started running towards the West Side Highway, and there was
another building on the corner, I guess it was a federal building, cause it was all the green
and gray uniforms with the Smokey the Bear hats, the cops in there. I went to run in the
lobby cause all of a sudden you couldn't see anything. I ran into the lobby cause I had no idea what had happened and the cops that were in there were telling everybody get out, get out, get out. Where are you gonna go? Stuffs blowing up. So I ran back out and I started running west again on Vesey. At that point, there was a car on the corner of the West Side Highway.

As I was running up Vesey, the first car blew up on me on the corner of Vessey and the
West Side Highway. That set my turnout coat on fire, that set my hair on fire. I kept running. I ended up running through this park, and I couldn't even see where I was running anymore. I kept running North through North Park. As I was running up here, two or three more cars exploded on me. They weren't near any buildings at that point, they were just parked on the street. Stuff is still blowing up behind me, as I'm running. I can hear stuff exploding. I could hear rumbling, the street under me was moving like I was in an earthquake. I've been in those, so I know what they feel like. It felt like an earthquake. There was no where safe to go. As I was running north in this park, and then I could start seeing again a little bit, and I just kept looking in the sky.

[mirandapriestly]

21. Good find! and I repeat, there was street level smoke

near wtc6 before the collapse. This video runs straight through (after impact) to the collapse, it's not an isolated clip and you can see ground level smoke quite a bit before the collapse in the area, FWIW. It's at around 3:18 into the video a little before.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-34989804385874...

[rman]

19. supposed WTC6 explosion cloud = WTC2 collapse dust cloud

As is clearly visible on the 911eyewitness video.
www.911eyewitness.com

[mirandapriestly]

22. there is smoke before the collapse. nt

[Make7]

23. What do you believe is the cause of the smoke?

I remember reading multiple statements made by New York Firefighters about ground level fires before the first collapse. I believe some of them said the fires were started by debris coming from the Towers when they were hit by the planes.

Here are a couple of videos showing fires pre-collapse:

   http://terrorize.dk/911/wtcfire4/911.wtc.2.fire.base.chopper.avi
   http://terrorize.dk/911/wtcfire4/911.wtc.3.base.fire.wmv

- Make7

[mirandapriestly]

27. I am just trying to point out that there was smoke

on the street level that was not related to the collapse. Everyone thinks there was not any because of the strange update by by "in plane sight". The same page that your videos are on (for some reason I can't open yours) shows "something" that fell from the second plane which appears to be causing smoke to rise from the street. I was wondering if that was what caused the hole on the top of wtc 6 although I don't think the location is right. There were also the claims from the sub basement from Rodriguez and the broken lobby windows, so I do not know what it was. I can't understand Danish or Dutch , but I think "terrorize" is trying to say the smoke was from whatever fell from the plane.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit8/

[Make7]

35. Okay.

BTW - concerning videos not working - I think your video link in Post #21 is incomplete. Well... it wouldn't work for me anyway.

I can't read that site either. IChing said that he can - maybe if you sent him a Private Message, he could translate some of it for you.

- Make7

[rman]

26. not all smoke is created equally

this particuler cloud is distinctive

in sequence:

"oh wait"
"oh my god the building is down"
...
"oh my god the building just fell"



http://www.911eyewitness.com/

[mirandapriestly]

28. Yes, that particular cloud is from the collapse, but there was smoke

which could have been related to a separate explosion that was not part of the collapse. I agree that the one cloud of smoke in your picture is a part of the collapse. There was smoke before the collapse, which is what I am referring to.

[rman]

29. agreed

My point is that some of the evidence for an explosion at wtc6, as presented by White, doesn't hold.

Beyond that there was a lot of smoke in the wrong places on 9-11.

[mirandapriestly]

32. Yes, exactly..nt

[adolfo]

30. Debunking Video

Here is a video that debunks the mystery cloud.

http://www.digitalstylecreations.com/Download/Debunking.wmv

You can also google "In Plane Site Debunked" to find it.

[adolfo]

31. More info

"David von Kleist, the narrator of "In Plane Site," has been more forthcoming, in person admitting to a major error in the film. The film shows images of a "plume" of dust rising up against the facade of World Trade Center Building 7, attributing this to a large explosion at World Trade Center Building 6, in advance of the Twin Tower collapses. However, the images of the plume do not show "both towers standing," as the film claims. The South Tower has already collapsed, and the plume is actually part of the resulting dust cloud. While the web page for "In Plane Site" has yet to acknowledge this mistake, we expect it will, since von Kleist was open about it in talks with many people during his recent visit to New York (9/11/04). We do not question whether his heart is in the right place; our doubts pertain to the quality of his video forensics. (For now, Brian Salter provides an analysis of the plume at questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html. He and Eric Salter take on a variety of other fallacies from "In Plane Site" and "Letsroll911" at questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html.)"

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040810075752147

[mirandapriestly]

33. some people think that vonKleist is a dis-informant

That accusation goes out to just about everyone in 911 research, but I am wondering about him, too. Government dis informants make a claim that is basically true, but include inaccurate or false information along with it. Then, they come out and "admit" that a major piece of their "research" is untrue. This has the effect of making their entire claim illegitimate (like what happened to Dan Rather). Now, because that one dust cloud was "debunked", all other misplaced smoke will be considered part of the collapse. Every time someone brings up the street level smoke that was long before the collapse, others will say "oh, that was debunked" or "that was proved to be a hoax!" even though the BASIC INFORMATION is still correct. It has happened on this thread a couple of times.

[Old and In the Way]

34. Very good point.......not like we haven't seen that tactic from

this administration before. Who knows, White could be in the same category.

[mirandapriestly]

36. I'm sure you have seen this, but...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=70380&mesg_id=70380

[killtown]

37. The 9:04 am photo is wrong, cloud in pic is from 2 collapsing

However, the WTC 6 could have been blown. See the new eyewitness testimony...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x70380