It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ATS: Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theorist Offers $100,000 Prize Relating to WTC Collapse

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 02:56 AM
link   
A wealthy activist is so convinced that the government is covering up the events of 9/11 that he is offering a $100,000 dollar prize to an engineering student who can prove that the towers collapses the way the U.S. government says they did. Jimmy Walter is also launching a contest seeking alternative viewpoints as to why the towers collapsed. The target audience is collage and high school students and the prizes will range from a $10,000 dollar grand prize to 100 prizes of $1,000.

 



news.yahoo.com
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Jimmy Walter has spent more than $3 million promoting a conspiracy theory the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States were "an inside job" and he is offering more cash to anyone who proves him wrong.

The millionaire activist is so convinced of a government cover-up he is offering a $100,000 reward to any engineering student who can prove the World Trade Center buildings crashed the way the government says.

"Of course, we expect no winners," Walter, 57, heir to an $11 million fortune from his father's home-building business, said in a telephone interview from California on Wednesday. He accuses figures in government, the military and business of involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Interesting and at least this guy is putting his money where his mouth is. However, how many people really think that the planes did not hit the towers? As the biggest dedicated conspiracy site on the net, we have debated the merits of countless theories. Having sat through all of this as well as participated in it I myself have come to this conclusion: While there are many unanswered questions regarding the events surrounding 911, terrorists did hijack those planes and they did crash them into the buildings. Is there a conspiracy? Maybe the only conspiracy is that the government is trying to hide evidence of its own incompetence in failing to prevent those events.


[edit on 12/16/04 by FredT]




posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Am from the UK and I watched the planes hit the Twin Towers live and then my wife said to me do you think they will fall down. I said no chance! These towers are massive, and thouse jets are small compared to the sheer size of the towers, then 2 minutes later they fell down. The first thought that came to my mind when it happened was "How Is This Possible" and I still feel like that and dont beleive the true story will ever come out. To me it would be more plauseable if it was'nt America that was attacked. Come on they no just about everything that goes on in this world, it's there buisness. Still stinks to me like a rotten fish. Not that I choose to be ignorant to the facts, its just don't add up on my calulator.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Keep in mind they were designed to absorb the impact of a slower moving lighter 707 the biggest plane of the time. They were hit by a jet travaling at maybe 100 knots faster with 200000 pounds more mass. Its a miracle that they stood up at all. BTW, the lead engineering evestigator at one point was an Iranian professor from U.C. Berkely I think. But that may be wrong, anybody knw?



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Keep in mind they were designed to absorb the impact of a slower moving lighter 707 the biggest plane of the time. They were hit by a jet travaling at maybe 100 knots faster with 200000 pounds more mass. Its a miracle that they stood up at all. BTW, the lead engineering evestigator at one point was an Iranian professor from U.C. Berkely I think. But that may be wrong, anybody knw?



But isn't the official story that fire brought down the towers? And the fireman tapes proved there were only 2 small fires left and they had it under control.

Also, the 2nd tower to be hit came down first. Out of all of it that one fact was the one that hit me when it happened.

Then you have Silverstein admitting that WTC 7 was pulled. They could not have put in the explosives in time to pull that tower unless it was done in advance. I've watched the Discovery specials on building demolition.

Nope, doesn't add up on my calculator either.

I am looking forward to see how far this guy gets with his campaign.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 03:47 AM
link   
The first thing that caught my eye was that this guy is a "millionaire activist" who inherited $11M from his father's business. So, it's not his money he is giving away, it's his dad's.

Next was this

Walter insists there had to be explosives planted in the twin towers to cause them to fall as they did, and also rejects the official explanation for the damage done at the Pentagon (news - web sites).

"We have all the proof," said Walter, citing videotapes and testimony from witnesses.


Then why does he need the contest?

Sounds like a lonely loser kook to me.





posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 04:46 AM
link   
I already mentioned this story a couple of months ago on the Bombs in the World Trade Center thread, your a month late and a dollar short



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 05:04 AM
link   
G,day. I reckon this Jimmy Walter fella has a lot of guts. I reckon his dad left him the money cause he loved him. Have a read of this & a little think about it.www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html
Yes it certainly was an interesting day. If i had an employee who showed flagrant dereliction of duty even if he was a toilet cleaner he would not have a job any more, let alone get re-employed.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 05:21 AM
link   
"another one for the suicide list George!"



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 05:27 AM
link   
The reason why the towers collapsed was covered in an excellent Channel Four documentary. Its all very well the conspircy theorists getting their knickers in a twist but the truth is much more mundane, as always.

They unvovered visual and documentary proof that far from it being a flaw in the design or that bombs were planted or any such thing as that, the reason why the impact of the 767's brought them to the ground was through short cuts taken to save time and money in the actual construction of the towers back in the '70's and their maintainance ever since. One area that was covered was the protective covering on the structural ironwork that was designed to protect it from the effects of extreme heat, this was supposed to be inspected annually and any repairs necessary made ASAP. they discovered that over half of this protection was missing at the time of the impact, the question arising was how come? Their conclusion was simply shoddy maintainance. I saw this programme a while ago and I don't remember the exact technical details but broadly speaking the un-insulated structure buckled and tore itself apart where the fires were hottest when, if the building had been up to full spec, it would have withstood the intense heat and at least remained standing. There was no Govt plot, no extra bombs, nothing at all. Given the state of each building at the time it was no surprise at all that the impact of a 767 brought it down.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 05:45 AM
link   
My main question would be why the towers didn't fall all lopsided. It's the little things. Something's just not right at 9/11. Before you write him off as a wacko, I think it's admirable that he's willing to put up so much money to prove his beliefs right. that's conviction, children.

DE



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
My main question would be why the towers didn't fall all lopsided. It's the little things. Something's just not right at 9/11. Before you write him off as a wacko, I think it's admirable that he's willing to put up so much money to prove his beliefs right. that's conviction, children.

DE


The weight is supported evenly by the structure which is strong enough to hold it up, when the structure becomes too weak to hold it it gives way like it did, in a domino effect, its not like chopping down a tree. Actually I'm a complete amateur at this but they did explain it on the programme far more intelligently than I just tried to do


[edit on 16-12-2004 by waynos]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 06:34 AM
link   

FredT:

Having sat through all of this as well as participated in it I myself have come to this conclusion: While there are many unanswered questions regarding the events surrounding 911, terrorists did hijack those planes and they did crash them into the buildings. Is there a conspiracy?


I feel nearly the same as you. I have sat and read through government explanations and conspiracies abound. There is so much speculation it makes your brain hurt. I think with all the confusion and changing stories about who is the "enemy" and why we are at war with whoever, people question everything.


My conclusion is even more simple: Planes were flown into the two towers, thats it. As to who, what, why the towers went down etc. I am still undecided and shall probably remain that way.

9/11 will probably be around as a conspricy forever just like JFK and Roswell.

This competition may produce interesting results and theories, but I feel they will just be pushed into the world of conspiracy.

[edit on 16-12-2004 by Kriz_4]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 07:24 AM
link   
In the unlikely case somebody could delive prove, he would have to give away $100.000 but he would probably gain a few hundredthousand dollars, selling it as exclusive story to the media.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I also don't believe the 9/11 government story:

1. Existing policies of attacking domestics infrastructure, which also included flying commercial airlines into them, to then subsequently blame an enemy, to justify a war against them.

Not only was 9/11 used to justify the wars in the Middle east, but it was also used to justify police laws all over the western world. -

2. The WTC towers were built to withstand an impact by an airliner .

3. The possibility of an airline hitting a building is not new. In fact the US air force are trained for such eventualities. What happened to all their training?

4. The planes hit WTC 1, WTC 2 and the Pentagon hours apart. How could there be a complete security and systems meltdown? After, one plane diverts from it's course and then flies unobstructed for 45 min, automatically alerting air traffic. How does a second plane do the same? And then a third with the most defended structure in the world - The Pentagon.

That is not incompetence. That's sounds like it has been calculated.

4. The first plane hits WTC 1 and generates a fireball. Most of the jet fuel is spent in the initial fireball. Thereafter all that can be seen is billowing smoke. The second plane hits WTC 2. Yet, WTC 2 falls at least 30 min before WTC 1. They both fall in exactly the same way.

In 1945 The Empire state building was struck by a B25 at 300 mph. It penetrated the 78th floor. An engine hurtled down an elevator shaft igniting a furious fire in the basement. A few months later the damaged portion was repaired and it lived happily ever after. Why is it that the Empire state building still stands?

5. WTC-7, which was not struck by any planes at all, nor was connected to the others, fell exactly the same way as WTC 1 and WTC 2.

6. The physics seem horribly wrong. The steel frame has a melting point of 1500 degrees(celsius) and the aircraft fuel burns below 500. Considering that a huge percentage of fuel was consumed in the initial fireball and given that it is spent at 500 degrees. How does it managage to melt the thousands of tons of steel?

In fact some reports say the steel was vaporized into minute dust, as well as human bodies? How is that possible? Yet, what belies all belief, that steel and human bodies can be vaporized, yet a passport of one of the purported terrorists remains undamanged enough to identify them.

7. Finally, consider the dirty play on investigating the 9/11 attacks and the government refusal to.

It seems clear to me the government is lying. It's an inside job. Hitler did the same by staging an attack on the German parliment building and then starting up fatherland security and wars with others. Bush has done exactly the same.


[edit on 16-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   
2. The WTC towers were built to withstand an impact by an airliner .

When the planes were built they were designed to withstand a full speed impact from the largest commercial jet flying. It's been thirty years. bigger planes, larger fuel tanks, faster speeds. None of which, were taken into consideration back then.


3. The possibility of an airline hitting a building is not new. In fact the US air force are trained for such eventualities. What happened to all their training?

and what was the air force supposed to do? shoot the planes down over new york city and dc? no doubt the gov't and the faa were caught off guard. no doubt nobody thought this was a possibility until the first plane hit. at that point there wasn't much time left to deal with the other 4 planes, especially since two were flying over major populated areas. I do believe the last plane was shot down. only part of any of this 9/11 conspiracy I do believe.

4. The planes hit WTC 1, WTC 2 and the Pentagon hours apart. How could there be a complete security and systems meltdown? After, one plane diverts from it's course and then flies unobstructed for 45 min, automatically alerting air traffic. How does a second plane do the same? And then a third with the most defended structure in the world - The Pentagon.

see above



4. The first plane hits WTC 1 and generates a fireball. Most of the jet fuel is spent in the initial fireball. Thereafter all that can be seen is billowing smoke. The second plane hits WTC 2. Yet, WTC 2 falls at least 30 min before WTC 1. They both fall in exactly the same way.

In 1945 The Empire state building was struck by a B25 at 300 mph. It penetrated the 78th floor. An engine hurtled down an elevator shaft igniting a furious fire in the basement. A few months later the damaged portion was repaired and it lived happily ever after. Why is it that the Empire state building still stands?

they don't make em like they used to? The fireproof coating on the steel beams was damaged or destroyed in many areas. As mentioned above, the lack of upkeep was a major factor. THe heat generated by the fireball was high enough to weaken the steel. Once weakened, the weight of the buidling was enough of a catalyst to cause the steel to collapse. the top drops down and that weight pushes down on the remaining building with more force than was ever anticipated. Buildings collapse.


5. WTC-7, which was not struck by any planes at all, nor was connected to the others, fell exactly the same way as WTC 1 and WTC 2.

The only gray area for me. Heat, flying debris etc. might have played a part. An example of how hot it was: There is another building across the street that is supposed to be torn down. Reason? Mold. The mold grew as a result of the water damage. The water damage came when the sprinklers were set off as a result of the heat from the buildings across the street. That's pretty hot.

6. The physics seem horribly wrong. The steel frame has a melting point of 1500 degrees(celsius) and the aircraft fuel burns below 500. Considering that a huge percentage of fuel was consumed in the initial fireball and given that it is spent at 500 degrees. How does it managage to melt the thousands of tons of steel?

You don't need thousands of tons of steel to melt. As was evidenced after the planes hit, the steel was still standing. Was it damaged? Wouldn't you expect it to be after being hit with a plane that is much larger and was moving much faster and was carrying much more fuel than the building was prepared to handle?


In fact some reports say the steel was vaporized into minute dust, as well as human bodies? How is that possible? Yet, what belies all belief, that steel and human bodies can be vaporized, yet a passport of one of the purported terrorists remains undamanged enough to identify them.

Have you ever been in a fire wrecked building? I have. My parents' house burned to the ground one winter. I went there shortly after it happened. The entire house was gone. Wood door still intact. Everything melted but there was a bicycle frame, with wheels intact in the middle of the fire.



7. Finally, consider the dirty play on investigating the 9/11 attacks and the government refusal to.

It seems clear to me the government is lying. It's an inside job. Hitler did the same by staging an attack on the German parliment building and then starting up fatherland security and wars with others. Bush has done exactly the same.

Standard I hate Bush line in almost every one of these conspiracy posts. How does Clinton play in the conspiracy? The WTC was attacked during his terms. I've heard how Bush et al have been planning this for a long time. How does he do that when he is not president? If the two WTC attacks were planned by a jackass from texas, while the current administration had his head in a fat intern's skirt, I'd say it would make Bush out to be much smarter than he is and Clinton would turn out to be the biggest moron, do nothing individual to ever walk the face of this earth.

my two cents.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Crakeur, I fear the person who posted that is beyond reason


Point one isn't even worth acknowledging as it is the ravings of a loon.

You pretty much covered the rest except to say that metal doesn't have to be melted, it only needs to buckle, which can cause rivets to sheer, which heat is perfectly capable of doing.

Also the impact of a 767 at 500mph+ is FAR greater than that of a B-25 at half the speed.

Also the thing about there being only smoke, don't you know, Indigo, there is no smoke without FIRE?



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
It's not fair to call someone a loon for posting their beliefs. Hopefully, by responding in a manner that addresses the differences, one side, or both, can learn something and change their point of view, if they so desire.

I'm not saying I don't find some of the conspiracy theories to be way way out there, I do. I find many of them to be asylum worthy. However, there is always that slight chance that everyone is crazy and the conspiracy theorist isn't, so I try to avoid the possibility of being locked away when the big purple aliens come and colonize the earth.


I was always bothered by the "where there's smoke, there's fire" theory. For example, you can rub two sticks together for hours and get some smoke but no flame. You can smoke a cigarette and see smoke but no fire. Sort of silly.

However, in this case there was fire. There was smoke. There was structural damage done as a result of both impact and heat.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 11:17 AM
link   
ACTUALLY ACCORDING TO THIS NEWS STORY...
IT IS $130.000.00 not 100,000.00
www.abc.net.au...

just for the info... might be a currency exchange rate thing... who knows...
good luck... i would pitch in another $100 just to see if it could be proven or a conspiracy disproven. probably nothing that is submitted will be considered, due to engineers being like scientists... once they have a theory, little will sway them from it.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:03 PM
link   
You gotta love the controlled explosion theory.

Has anyone who favours this idea ever seen a documentary on TV about big buildings being demolished? If you had, you would have seen holes for explosives drilled everwhere (it would take literally 1000s of charges to bring down a building the size of a WTC tower), dividing walls removed, structural supports weakened and an interior that looks absolutely nothing like a working office block. The effort that goes into demolishing a fair sized building is tremendous. It takes weeks of setting up and isn't something that can be done covertly.

You can see the effort required to bring down a building here -

www.phillyblast.com...

And yet not one person working in these buildings ever noticed even one tiny similarity to the above.


And for those who still claim that the buildings were destroyed by controlled explosions here is an industry site which refutes it. I would advise browsing the whole site - not just the page regarding the WTC.

www.implosionworld.com...

www.implosionworld.com...



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Frankly this whole offer of $100,000 is a scam. Who is to judge if someone wins the money? the person putting it up, or an independent third party?

That's right. No one will ever win that money, becuase this guy will just keep denying that proof was offered.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join