The $2,000$ 9/11 Challenge

Originally posted by Damocles
why does everyone (this actually goes for both sides of the debate) feel that if i dont believe in a specific explaination for the events then by god i best have a plausalbe answer to replace it with? hey i can speculate all day and pull theories outta my tail all you want, but the bottom line is i have no bleedin idea. when did it become unacceptable to be able to say "hey, i can explain why this theory doesnt necessarily fit the problem but i really cant tell you exactly what DOES fit the problem"?

I don't expect you to explain everything. I know you can't do that. I know I can't do that either. But here's where I have a problem. We have to take all the evidence available and find a scenario that fits all these evidences. We can't just pick a scenario and gather all the evidences pointing to that scenario while discarding all evidences that do not point to the chosen scenario. And this is exactly what the NIST report did, they started with their "pancake collapse" theory and they gathered evidences around it, some of these evidences were simply ridiculous all the while they discarded whatever evidence didn't point to their theory. Here's a few examples of this:

- Before the collapse a very large amount of molten steel was seen pouring out of the side of the building. See here for a video of it:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
Now, of course, kerosene fuel can not melt steel in this manner and that hot dripping molten steel proves that something other than a regular fire was present so NIST simply didn't mention this dripping metal in their report.

- Molten steel was found in the basements of all 3 buildings several weeks later. The gravity induced 'pancake collapse' could not explain how this metal was melted so the molten metal was simply left out of the NIST report.

- Countless witnesses report seeing/hearing explosions and some of them even claim they heard explosions in the basements BEFORE the planes struck. This didn't fit their "pancake" theory so it was left out of their conclusion.

- The fires could not have burned any hotter then 12-1300 F and they know this so they simply claim that steel looses half of it's strength at 1200 F. But just because a fire burns at 12-1300 F doesn't mean that the steel around the fire will reach any temperature close to that so they didn't address this pesky detail.

- Their theory claims that the trusses were stripped of their fireproofing and this caused the steel trusses to drop like licorice. If they had tested this in laboratories with actual trusses it would have shown that steel trusses do not drop in this manner after an hour of fires so they only made the claim without ever attempting to heat up an un-protected truss in a lab.

- WTC7's collapse would be impossible to explain without the inclusion of controlled demolition techniques so they simply didn't bother to even try to explain that one. 6 Years later and they are still playing dumb about WTC7's perfectly vertical collapse.

- Tiny pieces of bodies were found on nearby roof tops. A pancake collapse doesn't explain how bodies can be blown into pieces in this manner so they simply pushed that pesky detail aside and didn't address it.

And the list of omissions could go on forever my friend, I can't point them all out here. They simply invented a "pancake" theory and they gathered evidences around that theory while ignoring any evidence that disproves their ridiculous claims. It was nothing more than a whitewash, pure and simple.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by PepeLapew]

Originally posted by Damocles
so, what i was suggesting when i made my first post in this thread, should you or anyone else for that matter try it, was to just keep working out the problem solving steps. if thermite cut the steel horizontally, then theres a good chance that thermate would also, only better.

Let me make myself clear: I do not believe that thermates and/or thermites were used to cut steel horizontally. They are both liquids and they flow downward, not sideways so they can't cut steel sideways.

The columns were not cut at a 45 d angle with the use of thermates, they were cut with the use of cutter charges. Why should I try to use thermites to make horizontal cuts when I know it's not possible or practical?

Just on one of the points, tiny pieces of bodies.... it explians it perfectly, small very low weight piece of body, large volume of air exerted sideways as floors collapse, body part pushed by force of air. There would be small pieces from falling debris, concrete collpase, any number of 'heavy thing' hitting 'soft thing' scenarioes.

Jeez, stand on the side of a train track when a train passes and you will feel a small scale version of the forces that would be exerted.

I can't believe people are still talking about all this.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Quackmaster]

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Quackmaster]

Originally posted by Quackmaster
Just on one of the points, tiny pieces of bodies.... it explians it perfectly, small very low weight piece of body, large volume of air exerted sideways as floors collapse, body part pushed by force of air. There would be small pieces from falling debris, concrete collpase, any number of 'heavy thing' hitting 'soft thing' scenarioes.

Jeez, stand on the side of a train track when a train passes and you will feel a small scale version of the forces that would be exerted.

Here's something you can do on the train track: tie up a mouse onto the track and wait for the 200 ton train to come. Your mouse will be flattened completely. It won't explode into tiny fragments of bones all over. it will flatten out. Well, the same thing happens in a "pancake collapse" when a person gets trapped between two concrete floors. A person gets flattened out, not blown into tiny bits my friend. A person doesn't get blown into little bone fragments a centimeter long to be found across the street. A "pancake collapse" would not do that to a human body but explosives would.

Here's what I suggest you do: go get a mouse and try to kill it in a way that the mouse pulverizes into tiny bone pieces the size of a cooked rice grain. You can hit it with a car at 100MPH, you can hit it with a 200 ton train, you can hit it with a baseball bat if you want but you are not going to be able to blow it into tiny bits.......unless you use explosives! Capish?

Your entire argument is based on one cause leads to one effect, I make it a point not to get involved in 911 rubbish because I find the entire topic mindless to say the least.

If the builidng floors remained perfectly perfectly horizontal while collapsing then, you may be correct. Obvioulsy you would need to discount anything that could explode under pressure i.e. fire extinguishers, water pump compressors etc etc. Any angle on a collapsing floor could quite easily lead to grinding slippage which would be like cheese grating a body, particularly bone. As a floor crumbles into the next and mixes with the next air filled area then you have another outward explosive rush of air which can carry anything of a suifficent size from one or more floors above.

It is definately not the case that one cause only leads to one effect, that is simply narrow minded, to say 'explosives - full stop', that's the end of it is just lazy and convenient for the whole conspiracy crud. They are not the only scenario that results in the observed effects.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Quackmaster]

Very interesting, I dare you to reproduce any situation where a mouse can be grinned into 1 centimeter pieces. Use any size object to do this, just find me a way to grind that mouse into cooked rice size pieces and I'll be EXTREMELY impressed.

But don't cheat, don't be using dynamite for this.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by PepeLapew]

Originally posted by Quackmaster
I make it a point not to get involved in 911 rubbish because I find the entire topic mindless to say the least.
[edit on 2-5-2007 by Quackmaster]

Then by all means, do leave the forum.

We won't mind :0

[edit on 2-5-2007 by selfless]

Umm *trying to get back on topic* so who has taken up the 2k challenge to simulate the event?

Originally posted by greatlakes
Umm *trying to get back on topic* so who has taken up the 2k challenge to simulate the event?

Don't worry, I'm on it I'll propably try to complete one other challenge too at the same time. (911research.wtc7.net...) My tower will be 15 x 15 x 100 cm. The rest will be a surprice.. Do you have any demands on floor structures? Does it have to have a real floor-like plane in storey? I don't think that the tower's collapse would scatter paper or cardboard.. And hey, there were lots of almost intact parer from WTC 1 and 2!

About that other challenge.. I think that 100 MPH wind is bit overkill for my hardly ½ kg tower And WTF is that "at least 80% of the mass of the materials ends up lying outside of the footprint", none of WTC buildings did that... I wonder why it doesn't require that my tower would have to weight atleast 2 tonns.

I'll to the final test on next weekend, unless I'm too bisy to study for next week's exams.

Originally posted by msdos464
Don't worry, I'm on it

[/QUOTE]
Good Luck!

I'll propably try to complete one other challenge too at the same time. (911research.wtc7.net...)

His challenge is a bit more difficult then mine. I wouldn't request that the tower resists a 100 MPH wind, just the throw of a 25cent piece. But don't be a faggot, put some strength into throwing that quarter ...please!

My tower will be 15 x 15 x 100 cm. The rest will be a surprice..

Let me guess .... you are off to the store to buy pancake mix?

Do you have any demands on floor structures? Does it have to have a real floor-like plane in storey?

Well, to be fair i should ask that the tower is somewhat like the WTC towers but that would be a bit too complicated. It would be nice if you could have maybe 10 floors in it ... maybe?

I don't think that the tower's collapse would scatter paper or cardboard.. And hey, there were lots of almost intact parer from WTC 1 and 2!

I didn't make any request as to any paper or cardboard scattered around the tower.

About that other challenge.. I think that 100 MPH wind is bit overkill for my hardly ½ kg tower

Well, i think he is reasonable since the WTC towers were built to resist 140 MPH winds

And WTF is that "at least 80% of the mass of the materials ends up lying outside of the footprint", none of WTC buildings did that...

With the two towers, most of the debris fell outside of their footprint, but only with WTC7 did it almost all fall inside the footprint of the tower.

I wonder why it doesn't require that my tower would have to weight atleast 2 tonns.

Imagine that, 2 tons of pancake mix! That's enough to feed my fat ex-wife for a week!

I'll to the final test on next weekend, unless I'm too bisy to study for next week's exams.

Cheers and good luck with the exam.

Originally posted by newtron25
Can I make mine out of SPAM? I think it's actually the 70 or 75th anniversary of that fabulous meat in a can and it does have certain unreproducable construction properties...

A SPAM tower, now I really would love to see that.

Also, I was thinking of making the tower out of frozen pancakes, just for the poetic beauty of it all.

You sir, are a genius!

I really think you should make them construct it from steel and concrete. Trusses and all. That being said, your objective is to prove that ANY pancake collapse is impossible. In that case you have the full backing of Isaac Newton .

Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass increases and the free-fall speed decreases.

Originally posted by SteveR
That being said, your objective is to prove that ANY pancake collapse is impossible. In that case you have the full backing of Isaac Newton

Thank you SteveR, in fact there are several laws of physics which would have to be eliminated to create a 'pancake collapse', least of which is Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum.

But some people won't understand these simple rules of physics. I just hope that someone is going to try to experiment and find out on their own.

Let us put it this way, in the second collapse, there was about 20 floors above the said breaking point and at least 80 intact floors below the breaking point. So imagine if you will a stack of 10 bricks loosely piled one on top of each other. Then grab the top 2-3 bricks, lift them up and slam them down as hard as you can into the top of the remaining 7 or 8 bricks. You might be able to crack one or two bricks toward the top of the pile but you won't be able to pulverize anything into dust as was done in both towers. Much less pulverize a stack of 7-8 bricks completely into dust.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
You might be able to crack one or two bricks toward the top of the pile but you won't be able to pulverize anything into dust as was done in both towers. Much less pulverize a stack of 7-8 bricks completely into dust.

You got it. When will they learn?

BTW, forgot to mention, how can the solid columns in the core 'pancake'?

Someone has yet to answer that.

Originally posted by PepeLapew

Let us put it this way, in the second collapse, there was about 20 floors above the said breaking point and at least 80 intact floors below the breaking point. So imagine if you will a stack of 10 bricks loosely piled one on top of each other. Then grab the top 2-3 bricks, lift them up and slam them down as hard as you can into the top of the remaining 7 or 8 bricks. You might be able to crack one or two bricks toward the top of the pile but you won't be able to pulverize anything into dust as was done in both towers. Much less pulverize a stack of 7-8 bricks completely into dust.

In fact, trowing them with your additional force of your trow would not be accurate from what happened to the top of the building of 911.

If you want a real accurate test, try to take 2 or 3 bricks from 10 bricks and push them a bit to the side. haha

Originally posted by SteveR
BTW, forgot to mention, how can the solid columns in the core 'pancake'?

Duh! Think about it stoopit! Newton is dead and my physics teacher retired a long time ago, so their laws can no longer apply and they are no longer valid.

[edit on 3-5-2007 by PepeLapew]

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by PepeLapew
You might be able to crack one or two bricks toward the top of the pile but you won't be able to pulverize anything into dust as was done in both towers. Much less pulverize a stack of 7-8 bricks completely into dust.

You got it. When will they learn?

BTW, forgot to mention, how can the solid columns in the core 'pancake'?

Someone has yet to answer that.

No one could ever answer that, all they use to discredit these facts are this denial they are trapped under. Believing that the government is on their side.

Only when the denial is lifted, will these laws of physics consistent with this reality be understood by those who are in denial.



[edit on 3-5-2007 by selfless]

I guess before they swoop down on this thread and argue, I'll provide them with a few pictures.

members.cox.net...

Thinking ahead

Yup. A deck of cards and a marble. That'll do it.

Originally posted by newtron25
SCALE MATTERS. If you don't have a supercomputer or the means to recreate scale conditions with a margin of error that is within believable limits, this is worthless.

WRONG! When it comes to physics, the rules apply just the same to tall and short, heavy and light. Physics applies to all things equally, physics doesn't become void because the tower you make can fit in your garage.

What bothers me with your thinking is that on that day:

- the two buildings were built differently (according to Leslie Robertson)
- the two airplanes hit at two different heights on each building
- the two airplanes hit at different angles, one straight on and dead center while the other on an angle chipping the corner.
- the two airplanes had different amounts of fuel.

You claim I would have to reconstruct the exact same criteria to make a pancake collapse but the towers didn't replicate the same criteria.
Two towers getting hit in a very very different manner fell down in the exact same 'pancake' manner but somehow a pancake collapse can not be reproduced either before or after 9/11. The second building didn't need a "super computer' to replicate the same collapse as the first one so why should I?