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.

 

Attn: Debunkers

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reopen911.org...

Much like the "Progressive collapse challenge", but if you can prove it -- mathematically -- you will recieve a million dollars.

Go for it.




posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Oh wow! That's great!

I wonder how many years that million dollars will be waiting for someone to prove it can happen. We'll be waiting a while i think.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   
It's humorous how all of these conspiracy theorists swear that it's proven that bombs brought down the towers and claim to have proof to it. Yet, none of them, respond to this post. There's a million dollars at stake, but still no one trying to claim it....i wonder why?



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Faust
It's humorous how all of these conspiracy theorists swear that it's proven that bombs brought down the towers and claim to have proof to it. Yet, none of them, respond to this post. There's a million dollars at stake, but still no one trying to claim it....i wonder why?



Probably because it's a Million dollars to who ever can prove the buildings came down without using bombs since no one is able to do that without hypothetical insinuation - most noti NIST.


You've never heard of reopen911.org?



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Faust
It's humorous how all of these conspiracy theorists swear that it's proven that bombs brought down the towers and claim to have proof to it. Yet, none of them, respond to this post. There's a million dollars at stake, but still no one trying to claim it....i wonder why?


...umm...I think you need to read the challenge again. Yep.

Then come back, repost, and substitute "conspiracy theorists" for "Pancake theorists".



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
This is the best news I have heard in a long time. It will be interesting to see if anyone comes forward to claim the money. Personally, I think that Walter's money is as safe as OJs



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faust
It's humorous how all of these conspiracy theorists swear that it's proven that bombs brought down the towers and claim to have proof to it. Yet, none of them, respond to this post. There's a million dollars at stake, but still no one trying to claim it....i wonder why?



You know what I find humorous, that coincidence theorists like you half the time can't comprehend what is actually being said, but still take the effort to put up a big mouth about it.
Your theory is "proven" by officials, why don't you copy paste the NIST or FEMA reports that are free to download and try your luck?



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   
You can't mathematically prove a situation if you don't have all the variables. We don't have the tempertures. We don't have the structural integrity of which beam(s) were broke. Hell, we can't even prove how much the building's top weighed let alone prove how it fell.

You can't 'prove' anything if all the variables are estimates and guesstimates.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   

However, WTC 1 (the north tower) had a roof height of 1,368 feet. WTC 2 (the south tower) was nearly as tall, with a roof height of 1,362 feet. Each floor was therefore approximately 12.5 feet. Since the tower collapses began below that, approximately 10 floors, the collapse should have taken approximately:

1,368 - 125 = 1,243 or approximately 1250 Feet

1250 feet = ½ * 32 * 8.8² seconds

It is therefore proven that the towers collapsed at very close to free fall speed, perhaps faster since there is air resistance to consider. It is impossible for the floors to have been crushed and fall faster than free fall or slightly slower.

This is silly.

entrants' must prove explosives were not used with a time line with the energy needed, mass affected, time to fall and time to break all of the hundreds of thousands of bolts, rivets and welds, crush all the concrete plus thousands of computers, desks, copy machines, all the office contents, the speed of the total falling mass after each impact, and net mass falling after each observed ejection of the dust clouds of concrete powder, and the energy required to send the cloud all the way to New Jersey in a self-contained flow (this alone requires 14 tons of explosives

That was just stupid.

Second, entrants must prove that the steel bolts, rivets, and welds had the strength to hold long enough for the concrete and contents to be crushed; and explain what made them fail afterwards.

Is this guy serious, or seriously crazy? There is no requirement that, unless explosives are used, that a floor crumble, hit the floor blow it, pulverize all of its materials, then that mass falls to the next, crushes only it into dust, then that hits the next, etc etc.
Drink a beer, smash the empty against your head, and you'll (well, your drinking buddy) will see that the whole can fails, not just a sliced progression of portions. Make sure to use a tin can, not a glass bottle, when doing this.

Entrants' must prove how the floors fell straight down so that each floor was crushed uniformly and how the pulverized dust was ejected from a steel pan with a steel plate and carpet over it. The official diagrams show each floor hitting in the middle of the lower floor. If so, then the concrete in the center might have been crushed, but not at the edges. Since all the concrete was pulverized, entrants must explain this in detail.

This guy is asking people do demonstrate what has not been claimed. How about he demonstrate that there were explosives?

There is NO POSSIBLITY the administration's pancake theory and explanation of the dust clouds printed in the 9/11 Commission Report can even be close to being correct.

..might as well say 'no matter what you submit you won't win'



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
... Make sure to use a tin can, not a glass bottle, when doing this.


I don't think you should've added that. Maybe something more along the lines of "If you think of using a glass bottle, film it and post the footage. If it results in fatal injury, take comfort knowing you will probably be a prime candidate for this year's Darwin awards." Anyways...

This stuff never seemed like an honest attempt at trying to get some proof for something. The way it's posed is always in a manner that pushes their own theory in an attempt to appear subtle about it.

One thing I've been curious about, and the only threads I've seen that might mention have far too many pages for to go through before I loose interest, is how is it known whether the interior of the buildings didn't collapse prior to the exterior? I mean, we've all seen the footage, how is it unreasonable that the floors were giving out seconds before the buildings collapsed? That would allow the exterior of the building to fall unhampered by the interior, and it would be free-falling, as so many people claim is impossible without the use of explosives.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by Faust
It's humorous how all of these conspiracy theorists swear that it's proven that bombs brought down the towers and claim to have proof to it. Yet, none of them, respond to this post. There's a million dollars at stake, but still no one trying to claim it....i wonder why?


...umm...I think you need to read the challenge again. Yep.

Then come back, repost, and substitute "conspiracy theorists" for "Pancake theorists".


Theoretically a pancaking action happens during a controlled demolition so in a way the pancaking theory is correct. But then again, who said it was bombs? They have come up with some real nifty particle acceleration techniques. Vibrate anything from a diamond to a grain of sand into pieces at the molecular level.

mmmmmmmm...dust everywhere



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   
QuietSoul: That seems kind of hypocrtical. The burden of proof seems to be on people who are questioning the original story. Whenever they ask questions, they are told it's not possible to answer -- such as in this case -- yet when questions are asked of them, they are mocked if no exact calculation is provided.

This time the ball is in the hands of the mainstreamists. Put up or shut up so to speak.

Conspiarcy nuts are expected to be physicists, structural engineers, and demolition experts; the 9/11 commission and followers have gotten away with little math, skeptical reasoning, and unproven stories.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join