Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The Seldom Discussed WTC-6
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Location > World Trade Center Complex > World Trade 3, 4, 5 and 6
Start here -- some amazing observations for you to consider (thanks to Mr. White)
I don't know JerryB. I've talked with former police photo experts, who are 9/11 truthers, who say most of White's work is "bollox." Yeah, they're Brits. I'm not claiming any expertise here, but these two guys have taken apart a lot of pics White posted from the Pentagon.
Also spelled "bollocks".

Testicles anyone?
Well, I don't know either actually, I found this guy yesterday (not that I have a long time standing thinking him an expert on the subject of photography) but what I saw for myself (with little explanation beyond that being necessary) seemed pretty interesting -- especially the subject of cars changing location, shape, and color. I don't see how anyone could much argue against that, no matter how good a car salesman they might be. But it doesn't seem to be expressly limited to just those cars, as amazing as they are -- there is much else to consider. Sure looking at a photograph is severely limited, and no one is suggesting that Mr. White will bring the walls crashing down, but ignoring him based upon someone else's observations seems the wrong road to pursue as well.

Just go look for yourself, keep an open mind, don't get hung up on the subject, but do give it a look-see. Not to waste your time (or anyone's time) but some of that stuff is surely surpising and seems to stand on it's own legs.

I know we're all searching for that magic bullet, wanting to put this horrible trick that was played on the American people (the world as well) to rest -- but that's the point -- It was a trick and tricks can be proven for what they are. There's no real magic, just thorough investigation and clear thought necessary -- that involves even going back over stuff already looked at and things that others have discarded as useless or dead ends. Who knows what's there hiding in plain sight? A jewel just waiting for someone (like you) to reach down and pick it up and show it to the world for what it is. Some things are complicated and some things are absolutely simple. I prefer to keep focused on the simple (my mind can't handle the too complicated too well) -- that old saying about a picture worth a 1000 words (and I include videos in that path of least resistance as well while others quickly dismiss them as no value) // Well, I disagree.

Go look for yourself, if only quickly.
Thank you for moving this string -- actually looked for a WTC6 earlier and couldn't find it; thanks.

Here's something else as regards Mr. Larry Silverstein and him saying PULL IT -- And his lawyers coming back later and saying their client meant PULL THE FIREMEN OUT --

Seems like whenever this PULL IT is brought up it is always mentioned as not being a demolition term -- for you that haven't seen the PBS documentary, listen to what they have to say about demolishing WTC6. Is that 'PULL building six' that I hear? Think it is.

The back of that red jacket, the man with white hat, that you see cutting across the debris pile spells out Controlled Demolitions Inc., in case you missed it. Of course we already know they were there so this shouldn't come as any surprise.

QUOTE (Cary @ Nov 16 2006, 09:21 PM)
I don't know JerryB. I've talked with former police photo experts, who are 9/11 truthers, who say most of White's work is "bollox." Yeah, they're Brits. I'm not claiming any expertise here, but these two guys have taken apart a lot of pics White posted from the Pentagon.

I tend to agree with the police officers.

Here's what I had to say over on the old LC forum within an hour or so of my first exposure to Jack White's "work" archive archive
Hi WATERDANCER -- Let's talk a second or two on this subject.

First of all, however, a side note: I noticed elsewhere where you suggested a more appropriate, more all encompassing section to better capture and organize more of the WTC research than just a select few buildings at the site -- wanted to say I think that was an excellent idea. I realized the original shortfall as was set up when I went to post this WTC-6 info for example, it didn't fit anywhere. Again, thanks for also seeing the need to expand this collection area.

Now, regarding those comments and the photos you provided in the old forum (LC) -- I don't see how the comments and photographs go together at all. Sorry, but I don't. For example: You provided a reference to a scene on the lawn of the Pentagon with what appears to be some points made about a man holding a child and a running man // I don't see the child // I see the running man. And about that -- what in the world would a child be doing on the lawn of the Pentagon at this or any particular point in time??? As to that running man, he appears to be in the process of just aboutrunning right over the top of a couple of people doing triage directly in front of him in his line of travel. I know that trying to second guess action from a frozen place in time is probably not a real good science but still and all some things seem quite obvious // as a nonrelated point, what appears to be a dropped ball (not in any of the photographs of course) will most likely continue downwards and not upwards, if you can get my meaning here.

As to those two separate (in time) shots of the WTC towers -- I believe what is being missed here by everyone is the fact that both towers are still standing (again, at that point in time) yet in one photo (photo on the left) a large thick dust cloud seems to be rising from the ground in the vicinity of WTC-6 // the photo on the right however depicts a completely different yet also thick dust cloud but it is obviously the one we see generated over and over in videos of the tower in explosion-collapse-mode. I think the point Mr. White was trying to make is WHAT IN THE WORLD GENERATED THAT DUST CLOUD IN THE FIRST PHOTO, THE ONE ON THE LEFT???? Which I think is a darn good question. The follow-up to that is the excellent ariel photographic evidence given us (before CDI pulled WTC-6 obviously) where there is a tremendous giantic crater seen in the top of WTC-6 // that same crater extends deep into the building by many floors we are told -- again, I must ask: What in the world do you (or anybody for that matter) think might have caused something like that -- it sure seems to reflect back to that photograph on the left and its thick heavy dust cloud // do you just think that the same might have been possibly caused by an explosion? Of course it was. It sure wasn't the result of any damage from a falling tower, not at that point in time, the tower(s) hadn't fallen.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm not so quick to want to dismiss this guy's research as some say they are. How did you say it? -- he might not be skilled at doing research or something similar to that // I say he seems pretty skilled and observant in my book.

Comments? I'm sure some will follow from you. Welcome to hear more from you in this regard. Thanks.
Well, I don't know where we might have gotten off on the wrong foot in this conversation, since the links I provided above were pretty specific, but I'm copying and reposting a slightly edited (typos, etc.) version of the relevant posts in that thread (which I linked to above). I linked to specific posts there. Not to my misinterpretation of a photo as having a child in it, which I corrected later in the thread. In addition to what I am posting below, I would add that Jack White's MO seems to be to only provide edited photos without providing the original photo or linking to it. Not a good way to establish photo analysis credentials, in my book. I want to see the originals and judge for myself. You can think what you like about Jack White's analysis, Jerry, but to my mind, he's pretty much bollocks. Take a look at this picture (archive) to get a better view of the "supposed guardrail" that can't be sat on according to his "evidence". Hmm, looks more like rolled out clear plastic sheeting or some such, to me, than a guardrail... this image (archive) appears to be where he got the guardrail idea from. Which is not to say that they didn't eventually put up a fence there (archive), they did...but it doesn't look to me like it was there in the early shots. I'm not the only one with a poor opinion of Jack White's analysis, apparently.
For example Jack White's Photo Studies of 9/11 [ ] -- created long after the establishment of this website and its branding of '911 Research' -- features a slide presentation about the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, making a long series of transparently erroneous inferences from photographs. At the top of each page is a banner reading "911 Research".

First link:

I'm suspicious of his analysis. A couple of points he makes: different position of the red SUV in relationship to the bag man. Vehicles move. So do people, including likely the bag man. The camera angle looks quite different to me, based on the background buildings (Pentagon and others).

The warning sign and pole. Significant foreshortening differences between the two camera positions. I still haven't seen any sign of the east guardrail except in the one picture. Perhaps the triage area was in a different place? Or they were all photoshopped. Look at all the places the grass would need photoshopping between legs, etc. in the picture in question and others to eliminate the supposed guardrail on the east side of the sidewalk that is supposed to be there. Anyway, useless waste of time without some harder data. Hi res, exifer, provenance and sources of photos, etc. Could just as easily be a 9/11 truth disinformant photoshopper as a truther.

But, I won't give up on him just yet. The south tower crash explosion analysis looks interesting.

Second link:

My conclusion: Jack White is a either disinformationist, or hasn't done sufficient research. Discredited in either case.

More evidence:

these two pages attempt to show that the first image below had to have been taken before the South tower collapsed rather than after. BS, as the second image taken by Bill Biggart shows. Bill's photos are probably about the least questionable pics we are likely to find, IMO. Kinda hard to fake what the Marriot hotel looked like between the two collapses. I guess discrediting Jack White made this not a totally pointless waste of time.

Yep, they must have gotten every single possible shot of that second guardrail that supposedly ran along side the path and photoshopped it out of them all. Here are some more that they must have altered...

Here's some interesting photographs (side show) of WTC6 as presented by PHYSICS 911:
World Trade Center Building 6
WTC 6 was an eight-story building that stood directly northeast of the the North Tower (WTC 1). It housed the offices of 760 employees of the U.S. Customs service. 800 workers were evacuated from WTC 6 within 12 minutes of the first plane striking the North Tower. That impact caused debris to rain down on the roof of Building 6, which was adjacent to the impacted wall of the tower.

WTC 6 was severely damaged on September 11 with two holes that extend the height of the building. The photo, from directly overhead WTC 6 on September 23, shows a large crater in the center of the building, and a smaller one in the southeast end (bottom of photo). The holes had remarkably clean profiles, with the same region punched out of each floor. The shapes of the holes may provide clues about the collapse of the North Tower. It appears that fires may have raged through WTC 6. The FEMA report, which has extensive discussion about fires in WTC 5, is silent on fires in WTC 6. From the appearance of the remains of WTC 6, it probably had fires similar in severity to those in WTC 5. Despite the massive structural damage shown by the holes, and fires probably more severe than those in WTC 1, 2, and 7, WTC 6 did not collapse. WTC 6 was demolished as part of the clean-up of Ground Zero. FEMA, the agency charged with investigating the disaster, did not collect any data on this building.

Images and text courtesy 9/11 Research.
Molten Metals under WTC 6 weeks after 9/11
QUOTE (dMole @ Apr 1 2009, 12:30 PM) *
Molten Metals under WTC 6 weeks after 9/11

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

That stuff there pulling out from under wtc 6 seems like phospherous or something similar
jack white. when did i first meet him? must have been over 20 years ago at the first conference, in dallas, reconsidering the official conspiracy theory concerning the jfkennedy assassination. to the best of my recollection, jack either operated a printing business or was engaged in advertising. i think he had a professional understanding of how photographs[negatives] are manipulated in the advertising/printing industry[in the era prior to photo manipulation software being available to the masses, so to speak]. the focus of his presentation was the photos used by the warren ommission to indicate oswald's affection for his rifle and his allegiance to communism. jack white's conclusion, based on his analysis, was that the photos were fraudulent - that they had been constructed by some entity so as to bolster the official conspiracy theory. i don't think jack white got that inaccurately. to me, jack white's analysis of those most famous photos established his bona fides. that does not mean that his photo analysis concerning some of the wtc complex structural failures on 11/09/01 is accurate. but, i would care to submit that he may be seeing the photo record more accurately, more coherently, than the media, the 911 omission. and many others.

as i think i have written a long time ago, here and elsewhere, there were many aspects of the reportage on that day in september 2001, and in the immediate aftermath[continuing to this day, in fact], that troubled me[still trouble me]. some of you are aware of the most obvious verities that the media refrained from mentioning, continues to refrain from mentioning. to me, that coherent snuffing of "facts", throughout all media outlets, smacks of a very well-coordinated conspiracy to guide the citizenry into accepting the usg's scenario for the events of that day.

i think we are all aware of the reality that the media erased the video record of the "collapse" of wtc 7. as i understand it, no more than a handful of the citizenry knows of that "collapse". neither do they know of the robustness of that building's construction. and the rapid, virtually secret, construction of another building on that site has never received an "airing". to my mind, as if the perps wanted a building up as fast as possible so as to create the illusion that wtc 7 had never been demolished. the perps[larry silverstein, tishman-speyer], in this instance, i consider perfervid zionists, with long-standing relationships to the israeli intelligence services.

but there are other instances, i think, where the media[co-conspirators in the promulgation of the official conspiracy theory?] has hidden the photographic, video record. for many months, i wondered why it was that i saw no aerial video of the wtc complex and the collateral, structural damage. and, over the years, i have watched the institutional media[npr, history channel, et alia] documentaries concerning the events of that day at the wtc complex. it reminded me of how virtually every broadcast of filmed footage of the jfkennedy assassination avoided the rush of virtually all the crowd up the grassy knoll[virtually no one rushed the texas school book depository].

eventually, i encountered eric hufschmid's[eric is not beloved by the moderators of this site, as i understand. why is that? i have asked this question in the past, getting no answers] book...PAINFUL QUESTIONS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE SEPTEMBER 11th ATTACK. and therein were the photos that i was interested in. pictures that, as i recall, the institutional media has never "aired".

it is the photo on page 14 that continues to intrigue me. it is an aerial view of wtc 6. the blow-out of the core of that building. without the collapsing of the rest of that building. how does that occur?

then there is wtc 5. it also has a hole through its core.

and then there are the photos on pages 66, 68, 69, 71.

photos that i don't recall being aired on any of the institutional media documentaries concerning that day in september. perhaps i missed some footage on those broadcasts, however. but i don't think so.

as i view it, the imperative has been to "air" nothing that might discredit the official conspiracy theory.

11/09/01 was an attack on the usa. by the usa.
I must weigh in on the WTC6 crater, damaged before WTC2 collapse debate.

Look carefully at this photo. It purports to show that WTC6 is on fire and that this is before WTC2 has gone down. I say it is after both towers are down. (you'll have to page down to 04/09/2009 to Phantom's post)


Look at the sun gleaming off the west face of the Verizon telephone building. This is after noon. Look at the south face of WTC7. It is on fire. This shot is after both towers are down.

Check out these videos to see evidence of WTC6 remaining intact at least until WTC1 is down.

See this @ 5:00.

I have heard the WTC6 crater story over and over. I have yet to see any definitive proof of any WTC6 explosion before WTC2 went down. I haven't seen any proof of damage before WTC1 went down either. I believe WTC6 was "nuked" when the North Tower went down. And I think that WTC6's detonation/crater was one reason WTC7 had so many fires on the south face. How could the NT collapse initiate fires in WTC7? We know 7 was demolished. I am absolutely convinced WTC7 was supposed to be CD'd while WTC1 fell. Just as I am convinced that the DB (Deutsche Bank) was supposed to be CD'd when WTC2 went down. I think the fires in WTC7 were the result of WTC6's demo and/or the demo of WTC7 that went badly producing only partial collapse on the south face and a lot of fires.

In this clip, if WTC6 were ablaze you'd see evidence of it as WTC2 collapses. There's nothing, You can clealy see WTC7 and there is nothing going on behind it where WTC6 stood.

Here's a video taken from the east as WTC2 is struck. It shows WTC2 ablaze for at least two minutes and there is no indication of activity near WTC6.


See this video, taken from north and west of the site. It starts just after the first plane.

You see the aftermath of the second plane, about 11:50 in. You see various views of WTC6, still no fires there. Two minutes later @ 13:50 (tape counter) you see WTC6 again--- still fine. Just before WTC2 collapses you see WTC6 still intact. Firetrucks were parked right next to it. As WTC2 collapses you can see WTC6 and it appears the same and you can see the smoke rising near WTC7 that is the same as in White's analysis and the same as on the CNN view. These plumes come from WTC2 collapsing, not WTC6.

Look carefully at 14:05, you can see white smoke on the south side, ground level of WTC1 and 3. This is probably fires from burning cars, but why wouldn't the firefighters have put this out after so much time gone by? Unfortunately Bob and Bri edited the film and we have time missing here and there which makes it impossible to know when this is. We know it is before WTC2 went down because that area gets hammered.

At 18:20 well after #2 is down, WTC6 is still OK. I think this proves that WTC6 got nuked during the WTC1 collapse.
Kawika...sounds Hawaiian

Anyway could you back post this info to WTC core design so I can pick up on it?

I have always wondered about the "Big Hole".

WTC core design
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2020 Invision Power Services, Inc.