WTC Challenge

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?

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by HowardRoark
What gag order?

Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'
Highly recognized former chief economist in Labor Department now doubts official 9/11 story, claiming suspicious facts and evidence cover-up indicate government foul play and possible criminal implications.
June 12, 2005

--FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.

www.arcticbeacon.com...

I asked for proof, that is not proof, that is a self referencing claim.

Show me proof.



[edit on 29-6-2005 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.

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]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

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

My uncle has been a fireman for 35 years Howard and is Chief of his department and yes, he has all sorts of stories to tell but that doesn't mean he'd go into a public forum with information that has a court order saying if you DO go public then you'll face the law, lose everything you've worked for and have your credability destroyed by people like YOU who don't LISTEN but only parrot what the government says.

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.

"Show me proof" Howard that they wouldn't.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

I asked for proof, that is not proof, that is a self referencing claim.

Show me proof.

[edit on 29-6-2005 by HowardRoark]

"Show me proof", would of been your response to Moses when he came down from the mountain and said God gave him these commandments, i could see you sitting there cross-legged, arms folded & rolling your eyes.

Why should i give you anything just so you can reply with your own link that proves nothing, or a comment like 'that's not proof' because it's not .gov link?

You have no proof that they AREN'T under a gag order but we do have video and quotes of fireman who are on record on the day about bombs and we have an internet archive showing all information around 911 for the fire department has been deleted which is a something a gag-order or a supression of witness reports would be responsable for and all you have are a couple stories from Fireman who DON'T mention bombs. I'm sure there were plenty of firemen on the day who DIDN'T see, feel or hear bombs but some did so why won't you accept their version of events?

Still waiting on you to reply to AdamJ about your 'Challange'.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

posted by ShadowHasNoSource

We already know they pulled WTC7. For anyone that has watched the demolition experts on Discovery Channel, you know they can't safely pull a structure without quite a bit of planning and foot work. WTC7 was pulled picture perfect. This brings the obvious conclusion that WTC7 was rigged to blow prior to the events of 911.

Silverstein himself gave us the smoking gun right there. The other towers don't even need to be mentioned.

What an amazing example of circular logic.

There is NO evidence that explosives were the cause of the collapse of any buildings on 9/11, in spite of the wishful, fanciful and uninformed speculations by many on this forum.

Nice reverse there. Won't work on me though. Silverstein said it himself. No need for proof. He's the owner.


EDIT: Quotes got all messed up.

[edit on 6-29-2005 by ShadowHasNoSource]

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

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by HowardRoark

I asked for proof, that is not proof, that is a self referencing claim.

Show me proof.

[edit on 29-6-2005 by HowardRoark]

You have no proof that they AREN'T under a gag order: all you have are a couple stories from Fireman who DON'T mention bombs?

I will allow a little time for other facts to surface but rest assure TheShroudOfMemphis I have quotes from these same firemen on or the day after the alleged terror attacks stating otherwise. I am awaiting the foot in the mouth.

I have also (over the past 3 years) obtained some very interesting amateur video that was recorded by owners of VCR's on 9/11

You'd be surprised how many people had their VCR Plus programmed to record Regis

(VCR) Plus, hours and days of followup. VCR Plus was a good product indeed.



[edit on 29-6-2005 by Lanotom]

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.

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:

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.

Originally posted by Barcs
That's just not possible.

Impossible you say? You just wait. The amazing HR will conjure up the most amazing explanation why. Remember! Nothing is impossible.


www.godlikeproductions.com...

www.godlikeproductions.com...

Of course logic before lunacy.

Let's also not miss Debunking Conspiracy Theorists

www.serendipity.li...


www.physics911.net...

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.

(The two buildings adjacent to WTC7 were barely touched. Noted above with the green dots.)

Just for fun let's look at WTC7 again. Intelligence on the ground that day stated there were 2 small fires in WTC7 which burned for several hours. Then the decision was made to pull it. And voila...



Those hijackers are good. They managed to knock down a building that was barely touched by debris, they did it hours later, and they did it with very little harm to surrounding buildings. Amazing!

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource


Silverstein himself gave us the smoking gun right there. The other towers don't even need to be mentioned.

Nice reverse there. Won't work on me though. Silverstein said it himself. No need for proof. He's the owner.


No, Silverstien reported a conversation with the fire department about pulling out and not fighting the fires.

Sorry, but that is all it was.

If that is the extent of your "proof" then it is extreamly weak.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
No, Silverstien reported a conversation with the fire department about pulling out and not fighting the fires.

Sorry, but that is all it was.

If that is the extent of your "proof" then it is extreamly weak.

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander telling me they were not sure they could contain the fire. I said, you know, we've had such a terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it. And they made that decision to pull it. Then we watched the building collapse."

Larry Silverstein
LeaseHolder, World Trade Center

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

You were saying?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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...

Just in case you wanted to see the actual resolution of the satellite image...







And here is the entire complex without my neon green. Also, including surrounding buildings so you can see the damage radius.

U.L. labs has the proof

just a reminder... HR has still not answered to Adam Js report from U.L. labs.
The analysis that stated:
"that even under the worst perceivable conditions possible...
the towers should not have fallen..."

this took into consideration the density of the metal...the assumption that it might not even have been fireproofed (shoddy illegal construction) and the highest possible temperature that could have been present... STILL WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THE TOWERS DOWN... in the time that they were exposed to the heat.
It was adam J who originally posted this info.

U.L. labs is the highest regarded testing facilty in the country.
they test nearly everything produced for purchase in america... (except crappy chinese knockoffs)
they are the "U.L. labs" that you see printed on products from light fixtures to building materials...
The rigorous testing procedures they use, would find a possiblility here if there was one... they leave no stone unturned.

in short: there is no need of further proof... this is it...
If U.L. labs says it... then the highest authority has spoken...
and the fact that thier professional analysis didn't show in the NIST report, tells me there is a coverup or intentional neglect of fact.





[edit on 30-6-2005 by LazarusTheLong]