WTC Challenge, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 08:59 PM by TheShroudOfMemphis
Originally posted by HowardRoark
www.firehouse.com...

Again, I have to ask:

What gag order?



Well no surpises that those Fireman don't talk about the bombs they saw, felt and heard. Nice small sample there Howard. I really would of thought that a gag-order would be broken on a Fire departments network site because usually organisations which rely on government funding are the first to break court orders.

The point of a gag-order is so people WON'T speak about something so pointing out fireman who are not talking about bombs doesn't really prove diddly-squat.

We still have video taken on the day, before any kind of gag-order could be put on fireman who did see, feel and hear bombs going off so why should your link be anymore valid at proving a point?


reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 09:05 PM by HowardRoark
Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
Originally posted by HowardRoark
www.firehouse.com...

Again, I have to ask:

What gag order?



Well no surpises that those Fireman don't talk about the bombs they saw, felt and heard. Nice small sample there Howard. I really would of thought that a gag-order would be broken on a Fire departments network site because usually organisations which rely on government funding are the first to break court orders.

The point of a gag-order is so people WON'T speak about something so pointing out fireman who are not talking about bombs doesn't really prove diddly-squat.

We still have video taken on the day, before any kind of gag-order could be put on fireman who did see, feel and hear bombs going off so why should your link be anymore valid at proving a point?




You don't know any real firemen, do you?

No wonder you fall for every silly internet hoax if you believe that firemen are that craven that they would not talk about how 343 of their fellow firefighters died.

Do you really think that they would actually obey a gag order if they really thought that their were bombs planted in the building or that their was a government conspiracy to demolish the building on top of them?

Get real.



reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 09:12 PM by Lanotom
That www.firehouse.com... link is fishy as well.

Maybe there is no gag order but if you go to the Internet archive and look at the history you will see that suddenly anything after 9/2001 is not available.

Shall we say the truth is hidden or is this just another coincidence that an exclude was added not to archive after 9/11/2001

9-27-2001 til 11/28/2001 enough time for them to hush some people.

See for yourself.

web.archive.org...*/%20firehouse.com

[edit on 29-6-2005 by Lanotom]


reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 09:52 PM by HowardRoark
Originally posted by Lanotom
That www.firehouse.com... link is fishy as well.

Maybe there is no gag order but if you go to the Internet archive and look at the history you will see that suddenly anything after 9/2001 is not available.

Shall we say the truth is hidden or is this just another coincidence that an exclude was added not to archive after 9/11/2001

9-27-2001 til 11/28/2001 enough time for them to hush some people.

See for yourself.

web.archive.org...*/%20firehouse.com

[edit on 29-6-2005 by Lanotom]


Looks like some bad php coding to me.


The magazine itself from those months is probably available in a library somewhere.

firehouse.com...

firehouse.com...


BTW, here is a thread from the forum on Stanley Morgan



reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 10:08 PM by Jeremiah_John
Originally posted by HowardRoark
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.




This argument might be possible to win one way or the other if:

A - The steel for the buildings hadn't been recycled before it could be examined.

B - The blueprints (official) for the towers are released for public viewing.

Without these two keys it's extremely difficult to truly say one way or the other in an objective way.

One is left wondering why in hell the steel was never examined. The building steel structure should have been practically re-assembled from the pieces, just like when an aircraft crashed mysteriously, so there is a definite answer to what happened. Instead, it was all swept under the carprt.


reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 10:12 PM by Lanotom
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Originally posted by Lanotom
That www.firehouse.com... link is fishy as well.

Maybe there is no gag order but if you go to the Internet archive and look at the history you will see that suddenly anything after 9/2001 is not available.

Shall we say the truth is hidden or is this just another coincidence that an exclude was added not to archive after 9/11/2001

9-27-2001 til 11/28/2001 enough time for them to hush some people.

See for yourself.

web.archive.org...*/%20firehouse.com

[edit on 29-6-2005 by Lanotom]


Looks like some bad php coding to me.


The magazine itself from those months is probably available in a library somewhere.

firehouse.com...

firehouse.com...


BTW, here is a thread from the forum on Stanley Morgan





Of course the false archive is there otherwise it wouldn't be a cover-up would it?

Php coding? Oh yes of course. :cough:


reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 11:10 PM by HowardRoark
Originally posted by Barcs
Now I really don't have the time to read a 292 page article, but did it mention anywhere about what made the trade centers collapsed at pretty much the same speed as an object being dropped through the air with no resistance? That's just not possible.


The collapse speed of the buildings is another one of those persistent circular internet "facts" that needs a good stake through it's heart.



Note the debris falling outside the building in a free fall, much faster than the building itself.



major sections of the exterior falling outside the building envelope. Note the fact that entire column sections have broken free at once.


I have seen many different estimates of how fast the buildings fell from less than ten seconds to more than 13. The problem is, due to the dust cloud it is impossible to really tell.


reply posted on 30-6-2005 @ 09:05 AM by Lanotom
Well here's close up video of the demolition of WTC 7.

You can clearly see the charges going from mid building upwards.

You can also use the slider to play this video frame by frame.

www.prisonplanet.com...

And by the way here's Larry Silerstein talking about the pull.

"I said you know we had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. Ahhh, and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

infowars.com...
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 11 days ago with 14 member flags
In Depth Look At The Pentagon Witnessess On 9/11
  Posted 19 days ago with 12 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 4 days ago with 12 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 15 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 11 days ago with 6 member flags