We know the WTC 6 was pulled:




But I keep hearing from the skeptics that the WTC 6 was pulled down with cables and not explosives:




So does it look like the 6 was pulled down with cables, or pulled with explosives?






(Source photos)

The kink in the second full size photo looks just like the kink in WTC 7... neat.

They must have used some dusty cables on 6.

Of course. Dusty cables. Because that's the only way there would be dust flying up into the air.

Well I think the 6 was pulled with explosives because I don't see any cables attached to it and the 6 looks like it came down like you see with explosives used.

So I guess somebody needs to tell 911myths.com there are wrong...again.

A close up of the lower right corner of the building would be nice. It is obvious that they have removed averything except the support beams there. A closeup would show if the beams had cables attached or explosives attached.

Do higher res versions exist?

Does realtime video exist?

I do not see any cables or machines to pull them in motion, but it would be hard to see in these photos.

So because you can't see the cables in the pictures that were probably taken a good distance away from where the building was, you suddenly know that they used explosives. Where are the squibs and other evidence of explosives?

First of all, if they pulled it with cables...it wouldn't falll straight down as it appears to do.

Are you soooo for the government conspiracy Zaphod that you will argue ANYTHING?

Nice find Killtown.

How do you know? Have you ever seen one pulled that way? I'm simply asking a question. There are no squibs, no reports of cutting charges, and the only thing similar is the dust cloud. Are you so against anything they say that unless they show you in great detail you'll argue against it griff?

BTW, look at the third blown up pic near the base left of center. Appears to be pretty squibish to me...i.e. looks kinda like some photos of WTC 1 & 2 as they are falling....dust all around but some puffs of dust more pronounced.

Besides, SO WHAT? If they pulled it with a cable or with explosives WHAT DOES IT PROVE? It doesn't do ANYTHING to prove anything else about that day.

No, but think about it. How can you pull something with cables and have it fall straight down? The force of pulling would itself cause the building to collapse to one side. Unless they miraculously just "pulled" out the supporting structure without touhing the rest of the building.....i.e. not going to happen IMO.

You cut the pillars where they join the floor above, so that they support the floors but are separated, and then you pull the pillars out. Once you pull one side, that side falls straight down and takes the rest of the building down.

[edit on 9/18/2006 by Zaphod58]

It proves that the use of the word "pull" as said by Silverstein could in fact be used for controlled demolition....and not to pull the firefighters. When infact the use of the word pull/ed was used in the same documentary....once by Silverstein about building 7 and once by this construction worker about building 6. That's what it proves.

Sure it does, because we all known that someone that has NOTHING TO DO with controlled demolition will ALWAYS use the word in the same manner that the controlled demolition people do. I mean, the only time I've EVER used the word pull I was talking about bringing something down.

By pillars, I'm assuming you mean columns? This has some merit, but think about how precise you'd have to sever the columns to still support the floors above. Do you really think ANY construction worker is going to place him/herself in a position that one slip would kill them?



No, you'd have to do it to the whole building or partial collapse will happen. This is all my speculation, so if you can find me an example of this way of "pulling" a building, I'll shut up.

[edit on 9/18/2006 by Griff]

So, now it's a game of semantics? How does Silverstein know firefighter lingo then by your own argument above?

Edit: Horrible speller here.

[edit on 9/18/2006 by Griff]

BTW, I'm not sure if anyone would want to put themselves in that building to place explosives either. So, no I'm not just trying to argue here.

So if we're not arguing semantics what DO you want to argue in regards to his comment. If you don't want to argue semantics there's no point in even discussing it at all, because that's what it's going to come down to.

As for the building being pulled, then how did they do it? If you don't think anyone would want to go into the building then they must have SOMEHOW. And for pulling the pillars, you only have to pull certain ones and that will bring the building down. I'm sure they know exactly which ones they would need to pull to get it to fall like it did.

Actually Zaphod, I'm starting to think that it was as you state...because of what I said about no one wanting to get in to do explosives. It would be far easier to have men on a crane to attach cables than it would to have them actually place explosives. So, bottom line is that I'm torn on this. Sorry for insinuating that you just wanted to argue.

The flaw in this GRiff, is that they HAD to go in either way.

1) to weaken the colums and attach the cables
or
2) to place the charges.

Flawed logic... sorry.