WTC Challenge

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I hereby issue a challeng to those who believe that the collapse of WTC1, 2, and or 7 was the result of a controlled demolition.

The NIST has released it's draft report on the collapse.

I challenge those who disagree with this report to do so.

Specifically, I challenge you to submit your comments on the report.

If you do so, please post your comments here also.

I also issue this challenge to any of those who are responsible for the myriad of WTC Demo sites on the 'net.

I would very much like to see the specific, technical reasons why you do not think that the draft reports are correct.

I predict that I will not receive many ATS points for this thread.




posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   
NIST is a government agency.

No chance of any bias there


Do you really expect a government agency to come out and admit it was a controlled demolition?

If you do then you are really naive as far as how government does things.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
ya I am thinking a waste of database space with this post.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
NIST is a government agency.

No chance of any bias there


Do you really expect a government agency to come out and admit it was a controlled demolition?

If you do then you are really naive as far as how government does things.


Well then I'm sure that you and your crack 9/11 research teams will be able to pick apart the report. Certainly there is some data that you have that conclusivley refutes the findings? some research, some structural analysis, something.

Why don't you bring it forward and submit it to them?

Put up or shut up.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
ya I am thinking a waste of database space with this post.


It is only wasted space if you fail to take the opportunity to make yourself heard.

Hell, you don't even have to submit a technical comment. You can submit a political manifesto if you want.

THEY HAVE TO READ IT.



Whats' a matta? Chicken?



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Howard, you must realise that this is similar to me publishing a report showing how, in 2001, a fart like smell occured in my bedroom... with post-fart proof detailing that it was in fact a smell that came from outside through my open window, and was not in fact done by me. I will show you statistics for this, after the offending smell has gone and all of my neighbours and anyone associated with them have been sent to concentration camps. I will also show you figures and graphs showing the statistics of the said fart and its impact it had in my bedroom - I'll then welcome comments trying to debunk my report.



[edit on 26-6-2005 by paranoia]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I clicked on a link titled "exercise in futility," and lo and behold my little simian butt ended up here... Imagine my surprise that it's a WTC thread... And even more surprising that it pertains to the issue of (actually the lack thereof) deliberate demolition.

Let the ignorance begin!

Unleash the hounds of ridiculousness!

The end is nowhere near...

Collapse Monkeys, not just for ROFLMAO anymore...



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by paranoia
all of my neighbours and anyone associated with them have been sent to concentration camps.


I'm not sure what you are trying to say. are you implying that anyone who dissagrees with the NIST report has been or will be set to a concentration camp?


If so, then your screen name is appropriate.




posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. are you implying that anyone who dissagrees with the NIST report has been or will be set to a concentration camp?


If so, then your screen name is appropriate.





Very true. I was just getting carried away with my story. Now back to the other story...



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Hey Howard,
Ask your buddies in at the Pentagon or Whitehouse, which ever office you frequent to ask Bush to declassify a few hundred million dollars worth of documents, get him to lift gag orders on fire fighters and some at the FBI and have him reform all the metal that was scraped and melted.

Be a big help,
Cheers



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Good luck Howard...

I suspect more of the same, in trying to debunk you instead of the facts...

There is one thing I'm curious about, is why you are not mentioning the natural gas lines in the WTC, if I'm not mistaken ( could be wrong, heard it somewhere ) the resturant on the top floors used natural gas for the burners in the grills, this would mean that the lines would have to be ran from the bottom to the top floors, and when the plane hit the towers, it would have ruptured the lines...

But anyway a lot of people can't see the forrest for the trees...

Keep up the good work
, but I don't think you're going to convince these type of people, and I don't think you are going to be taken up on your challenge...



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
The replies to this thread will be posted seriously or they will be edited out.

There have been dozens of threads posted supporting the side that claims insider government foul play. Howard has posted a thread directly related to the NIST report, and has asked people to seriously post their claims that dispute it. Comments attacking members personally (for example calling them feds because they don't buy into a certain theory) will very simply and quickly be removed.

We are not debating member affiliations here. We are debating a report. Either contribute or choose not to partake in the thread.

Thank you.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Youd be better of using fords documents to prove GM is a better car.

IN other words, it is an untrusted site. Why can't there be any third party investigation again?

Let me ask everyone a question.

You come home from work one day and find your garaged torched. Burt right away - nothing left. You're neighbor, while you were away, went ahead and built an extention to his own garage where your garage had been. You ask what happened and he relays a story of how this kids set the fire using molotov cocktails, and it is only due to his quick thinking that the fire got put out in time to save your house. The evidense would be there, except that he had it already removed, so as to build his extention.

Later you find plans for his extention dated prior to the fire, you then go down to talk to the local fire officers and find out they they aren't talking. Not denying, just not talking.

Who did it?

I know who did it, and I suspect you would too. So why can't you see it that clearly just because he is the President?



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
The replies to this thread will be posted seriously or they will be edited out.

There have been dozens of threads posted supporting the side that claims insider government foul play. Howard has posted a thread directly related to the NIST report, and has asked people to seriously post their claims that dispute it. Comments attacking members personally (for example calling them feds because they don't buy into a certain theory) will very simply and quickly be removed.

We are not debating member affiliations here. We are debating a report. Either contribute or choose not to partake in the thread.

Thank you.


Hmmm...
I thought this was a discussion board? I have been through thread after thread after thread with Howards Roark in regards to the demolition of the WTC complex, and he still won't address some of my questions raised in those, so why the seeming hostility in this particular thread Djarums? Can I start a thread demanding Roark address my question as to why Marvin Bush's securrity company removed the bomb sniffing dogs from the complex the weekend before 9-11 and expect the same fervor?


Originally posted by Djarums
The replies to this thread will be posted seriously or they will be edited out.

We going to start applying to this all threads? We going to start having to post Bibliographies, Sources Cited, Footnotes as well? I trust this endeavor will not only be applicable to WTC or Roark related threads? First off, Roark is perfectly capable of defending his position, and secondly, this is a discussion board, not a Comission, or an Official Inquiry.
Or is this some kind of special thread abover reproach and offended by dissention?


But seriously....
Roark wants us to reply in all seriousness to his thread, then my reply is thus, his source is biased beyond credibility, and frankly this topic is currently under debate in several other threads he is well aware of, one of which he could added this to. The evidence he is asking us to present has already been presented, this is a rehash, and he is actuallya sking to post on their site which I believe is a a TOS problem anyway, or so I was told when I linked to a petition once here.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
The replies to this thread will be posted seriously or they will be edited out.

There have been dozens of threads posted supporting the side that claims insider government foul play. Howard has posted a thread directly related to the NIST report, and has asked people to seriously post their claims that dispute it. Comments attacking members personally (for example calling them feds because they don't buy into a certain theory) will very simply and quickly be removed.

We are not debating member affiliations here. We are debating a report. Either contribute or choose not to partake in the thread.

Thank you.


Done deal I'll shut up and post no more...



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Well then I'm sure that you and your crack 9/11 research teams will be able to pick apart the report.


I don't need a crack research team to smell bull#e.

It's so easy to just believe everything the government tells you as fact, because it eases you mind and you can carry on your life under the false assumption that everything is all hunky dory.
Just excepting the party line might make you sleep better at night but in the long run it just allows the government to run all over us.

If every citizen just excepted what the government tells us they'd still be slavery, work houses, no education, no Human rights at all.

The government gives us nothing unless we question and fight for it.

No government report about itself is gonna stop me questioning it's actions.
That would be stupid and backwards IMHO.

It's like cops investigating alleged crimes by other cops, they cover themselves and the cops get off. Fajita-Gate in Claifornia is a good example.

It's just really naive to except what government tell us, history proves that over and over.

But I guess ignorance is bliss?



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Too all of those that claim that the NIST report is biased.

PROVE IT

Then submit that proof as a comment.

Thousands of engineers, scientists and architects around the world will look at those reports. They will make important design decisions based on that report.

Many companies will make very important business decisions based on that report.

Why would they do this if it is a biased report?



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   
How about you prove it's NOT biased?

C'mon Howard, companies do business based on biased reports everyday.

You think the gov would worry about lying over it's involvment in 9-11 because they are worried how it will effect companies?
Just think how it would effect companies if the gov said, "Yes they were loaded with explosives and we bought them down ourselves"?

You can't be that naive surely?

[edit on 26/6/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Interesting thread HR. One problem with it though, there are a lot of ommisions in the draft report. For example, no one can rule out explosives being used. What do you think would happen if I submitted comments reguarding my belief that explosives were used along with pictures and white pages by engineers who also believe that explosives were used? Basically my point is -most- of the important evidence was either covered up or destroyed/carted off and melted down.

I wouldn't have said it in so many words but just like TheShroudOf Memphis said in a prior post:

"Hey Howard,
Ask your buddies in at the Pentagon or Whitehouse, which ever office you frequent to ask Bush to declassify a few hundred million dollars worth of documents, get him to lift gag orders on fire fighters and some at the FBI and have him reform all the metal that was scraped and melted.

Be a big help,
Cheers

Like I've said time and time again.. If explosives were used on 911 it would throw a wrench and completely unravel the 'official' story and this draft report you want us to challenge. My point is, sending comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology will do no good. At the moment I can't empirically prove that explosives were used but by the same token, National Institute of Standards and Technology can't prove that they were NOT used. Quite simple really.

There needs to be a complete disclosure of any available evidence and formal investigation.. Not petty challenges to some government agency probably involved in a coverup.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Some people are missing the point.

My statement was and remains: If your participation in this thread is solely based on mocking the thread author it is not welcome and will not remain.

What part of that is unclear?

Both sides of this debate have been allowed ample discussion space. It is not up to anyone to say this thread has no place here because you don't like who started it or what he has to say.


Can I start a thread demanding Roark address my question as to why Marvin Bush's securrity company removed the bomb sniffing dogs from the complex the weekend before 9-11 and expect the same fervor?


Sure you can twitchy. And if you choose to do so, and people choose to make fun of you for it or question your integrity I will deal with it the same way. These threads will from this moment forward focus exclusively on content, not who posted it and what everyone thinks of them.

I don't care if people don't like Howard or you. You both have the right to start threads questioning things and you both have the right to expect intelligent replies to them. If people can not partake intelligently they will be asked not to partake. It's a serious topic, not a flamefest.

[edit on 6-26-2005 by Djarums]





new topics
 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join