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.

 

Debunkers can get 1 million dollars

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
That's right, 1 million dollars.... This contest has been going on for a few years and started at $100,000, perhaps more. The fact that no one has been able to stake the claim, it's now $1,000,000 . Here's your chance Debunkers.

$1 Million Contest Details

This is void where prohibited by law: including but not limited to Colorado , Maryland , Nebraska , North Dakota, Vermont, New Jersey and Tennessee. It is void anywhere prohibited by law.

The contest page supercedes all previous ones and all previous offers are withdrawn. 11-Nov-2005. Only one significant change has been made since the beginning except for clarification, point 12 about molten steel.

In response to challenges that one cannot prove a negative this paragraph has been added. There are several famous negative "proofs" that are accepted by the entire scientific community:

The Second Law of Thermodymanics.
The Heisenburg Principal

If I prove that I am at point A, that proves I am not at point B.

If one claims that there is an elephant in a room and we enter the room to find that it is empty, that proves there is not an elephant in the room.

For a more detailed debunking of, "you cannot prove a negative", See Article

This challenge has taken the form of the latter two logical statements above. When people say you cannot prove a negative, they are referring to statements like:

"This exists because there is no proof that it does not exist."

All explanations, in all parts of this contest must be supported with detailed drawings for all significant events. Particularly, explain and document with drawings and engineering the following video clips: 1) In first video at 0:02 the puffs start below the collapse. 2) At 0:05 several floors blow out at the exact same time. 3) The explosions come in waves. 4) The 3rd video shows puffs coming out of floors far below the buckling section. 5) At 0:09 some puffs come out of single windows far below the collapse. Remember that the government claims that the elevator shafts were open chimneys so that would have been the path of least resistance to the blown out windows in the lobbies. 6) At 0:12 at the lower left corner of the building explodes ahead of the collapse. 7) The 7th video, the collapse is not floor by floor as the left side explodes approximately 4 floors ahead of the right side at the corner, not the middle of the floor as the FEMA drawings show. 8) The first north tower video the same. 9) The second North Tower video the demolition "squibs" of dust shooting out several floors below the "collapse". 10) In the last video the fireman describes how was EVERYTHING reduced to dust, everything. Not even standard controlled demolitions do that as building 7 showed. No building collapse has ever done that. Explain and document.

11) The second flash above and our screen saver show a video of pieces of the building flying UP and out over 100 meters with trails of smoke and dust following them (at 6.1 seconds you see the best example); provide details and drawings of how this happened including the trails of smoke and dust. Remember that steel is brittle, it does not flex like Iron. Therefore there is no possibility of it flexing enough to catapult itself upward.

12) This is a new requirement added on November 11, 2005: There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7. For example,

Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides [Eaton] continued, ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster." (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002, "'Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet." (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)

Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel."

Since steel melts at approximately 2,800° Fahrenheit. The maximum temperature of a flame in open air is 1800 degrees F. FEMA and NIST claim a temperature of only 90O° Fahrenheit was reached to weaken the steel. Explain how the steel melted without explosives.

13) Entrants must prove how the trade towers steel structure was broken apart without explosives in 8.4 seconds. There is a sequence of photos in Eric Hufschmid's Painful Questions on pages 50 to 55 showing big steel beams falling in the air where the explosives are staying ahead of the falling beams. That shows exactly what the seismic data shows; namely, the explosives were shattering the building faster than the rubble was falling. The steel beams were falling at free fall speeds.

The formula for distance and time is:

s=½at²

Where:

s = distance in feet
a = gravitational constant: 32 ft/sec²
t = time in seconds.

The videos and seismic records show that the time of one structure's destruction was approximately 8.4 seconds though the complete settling of the building lasted slightly longer, perhaps as long as 12 seconds, but not long enough to account for anything but explosives.

s = ½ * 32 * 8.5²
s = 1156 feet

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.

It is therefore proven that the towers' structures were destroyed at very close to free fall speed, perhaps faster since there is air resistance to consider. Impossible without explosives.

14) Since it is alleged that the floors pancaked down on each other crushing each floor as it went, 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 - the 14 tons paper must be disproved as part of this contest. 15) Contestants must show exactly how the concrete was pulverized and ejected with detailed drawings).

16) Force is a factor relative to resistance. For instance, we are on the earth's surface spinning around the earth's center at 1000 miles per hour. So we each have the POTENTIAL force of our individual masses being in a wreck at 1000 mph. But since we and most of the objects on the earth are all moving at the same relative speed, there is nothing for this force to work against and we are unharmed - in effect there is no force. The same holds true for the building collapses. The potential force to crush the concrete by the falling mass is relative to the resistance it meets. If there is no resistance, there is no crushing. If there is a little resistance, then there will be a little crushing, and so on, depending on the amount of resistance. If the bolts, rivets, and welds held, then the building would not continue to collapse. If the resistance of the bolts, rivets, and welds was less than the power needed to crush concrete, then the concrete would not have been crushed until the whole mass hit the ground. Entrants must prove that the steel bolts, rivets, and welds still had the resistance to stop the falling mass long enough for the concrete and contents to be crushed. Then they must explain what made them fail after the concrete was crushed. The timing is important since it takes time to do anything, especially to crush concrete, steel desks, etc. Entrants must include the energy required, source, resistance, and timing for breaking the bolts, rivets, welds, office contents, and concrete.

17) 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. Moreover, the graphic and video at the top of this page show that the collapses in that portion were not straight down: that the lower left corner is 4 or more stories ahead of the right. This must be explained in detail and, like every other significant point, with drawings and then the mechanism that changed the fall to straight down.

To disprove explosives were used, entrants must further :

18) Provide a time and heat transfer study of attainable temperatures within the core and perimeter columns based on best available data on fuel load, air supply, efficiency of combustion and the spatial and temporal extent of the fires, which the photographs and firemen's radio transmissions show were small.

19) Describe in detail what “additional local failures” took place, consistent with temperatures attained and initial damage.

20) Explain in detail how such local failures could lead to sudden and complete failure of all core columns.

21) Account for the highly symmetrical and near-vertical character of the collapses.

22) Describe the initiating event and mode of propagation of the final collapse, consistent with the observed progression of the collapses, including the near free-fall speed and (almost) complete disappearance of the core columns.

The first person to prove explosives were NOT used in all of the above with a full, detailed mathematical analysis covering all of the points above will receive $1,000,000. The proof will be subject to verification by a scientific panel of PHD engineers, physicists, and lawyers.

This offer is void where prohibited by law.

Jimmy Walter

mailto:jwalter@walden3.org?subject=Engineering Data




posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   
If there is no proof that something exists I can't see how anybody can argue that it exists. But you can reasonably argue that it is certain that it does not exist either. Lack of proof is merely lack of evidence it is not as they say evidence of non-existance.



new topics
 
0

log in

join