Building Six - 9/11 Scholars Forum2024-03-29T15:37:02Zhttps://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/building-six?commentId=3488444%3AComment%3A2745&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noHi Jack
I enjoyed looking at…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2009-08-02:3488444:Comment:27452009-08-02T13:14:04.000ZNeil Austinhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/NeilRichardAustin
Hi Jack<br />
<br />
I enjoyed looking at your study very much. I am inclined to lean towards the DEW arguments and have looked at Dr. Judy Woods' study previously. The thing that clinches it for me is the apparent loss of mass or 'dustification' as she put it. The body of building 6 is just not there. The only other option would have to be nuclear weaponry but this surely would have totalled the building. Lets postulate that a beam were being aimed from high above the WTC complex. The margin for error…
Hi Jack<br />
<br />
I enjoyed looking at your study very much. I am inclined to lean towards the DEW arguments and have looked at Dr. Judy Woods' study previously. The thing that clinches it for me is the apparent loss of mass or 'dustification' as she put it. The body of building 6 is just not there. The only other option would have to be nuclear weaponry but this surely would have totalled the building. Lets postulate that a beam were being aimed from high above the WTC complex. The margin for error over a huge distance is tiny. A couple of misdirected shots or reflections of a beam weapon and oops! there goes building 6!<br />
<br />
Neil