$1 MILLION REWARD for a simple paper in PHYSICS -- CONTROLLED DEMOLITION HOAX of 9/11

thermate at india.com thermate at india.com
Fri Sep 29 07:11:48 CEST 2006


Copy and paste from the site on 911 http://reopen911.org/

$1 Million Challenge 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are withdrawn. 3-September-2006. Only four significant changes have
been made since the beginning except for clarification, (a) point 12,
about molten steel. b) We equate exotic weapons as "explosives" (you do
not have to prove that exotic weapons were not used. But you cannot
claim the prize if you do prove that exotic weapons were used). c) The
renaming of this offer as a challenge and not a contest. d) all
evidence and points presented by Scholars for Truth, Professor Jones,
and Morgan Reynolds must be refuted and are included in the
requirements, and [newest] e) the radiation contents of the dust must
be explained.

[Note: that the point of this challenge is to show that the terrorist
administration of George Bush control of the NIST's contention of how
the buildings fell is totally ludicrous. We continue to update this
page with more facts as Professor Jones, Morgan Reynolds, Nico Haupt,
Jim Fetzer, Rosalee Grable, Gerard Holgram, and others point out more
and more holes in the official"bull...."] No one as of 3 September 2006
has even entered a valid entry that has all of the demanded points
answered with calculations, drawings and timelines. Anyone can claim.
No one has put up on their side. We have put up $20,000 under the FOIA
to get all of the NIST's data. it is coming to www.nistreview.org

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 Thermodynamics.
    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
this 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) This 2rd 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) This 3rd 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) This north
tower video the same. 9) This second North Tower video the demolition
"squibs" of dust shooting out several floors below the "collapse". 10)
In the this 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 [this
sentence was modified August 22, 2006] of something following them or
flowing from them (at 6.1 seconds you see the best example); provide
details and drawings of how this happened including the composition of
the trails and how they are able to follow or flow from them. Remember
that structural 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) The seismic data shows the structure of the tower was broken apart
in 8 to 10 seconds, though many of the pieces of the building took
longer than that the fall. Entrants must prove how the trade towers
steel structure was broken apart without explosives in that time
period.  Please note this says "broken apart", not collapsed. 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. [Added 25 Aug, 2006. If you question the time and can
provide proof of a different time, then you may use that time. You
still have to have detailed drawings and a time line supported by the
calculations of the physics of energy and motion. It takes time and
energy for a collapse to break apart the bolts, welds, concrete and
steel floors, and beams]

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.

23) [added 27 August, 2006] Explain the radioactive dust samples that
indicate a micronuclear weapon was used

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




More information about the Python-list mailing list