Win One Million Dollars! Prove How the WTC Could Collapse in 8.5 seconds

WITHOUT demolition!

(Hack89, LARED, Make 7, Vincent Vega Lives-- time to show your stuff!)

http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm

$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The contest page supercedes all previous ones and all previous offers are withdrawn. 13-sep-05 6:07 PM

Mr. Walter is down to his last few $ Millions. He expects no tears. He knows deeply that his sacrifice is far less than the sacrifices the soldiers and their mothers and families such as Cindy Sheehan have made. He has put aside one million dollars to challenge all his "shallow and snake like" attackers such as Showtimes' Penn & Teller, CNN's Anderson Cooper, Geraldo, the editors of the New York Times and others "to put up or shut up". "Science is on my side!":

First, entrants must prove how the trade towers collapsed in 8.5 seconds, as the video and seismic records show, without explosives.

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 collapse was approximately 8.5 seconds. Therefore:

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. 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.

For instance, there were 110 stories and the collapse appears to begin at the 100th floor. If it had only taken 1 second per floor, that would have been 100 seconds. To be under .1 second total time for the 100 floors, each floor would have to have been totally crushed in under 0.001 seconds. Impossible without explosives.

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).

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. Entrants must include the energy required, source, and timing for breaking the bolts, rivets, and welds.

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.

Entrants must further disprove explosives were used:

1) Provide an estimate 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.

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

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

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

5) 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 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

I live in NJ.

And I typically don't engage in fools errands.

This "contest" sort of reminds me of the old pipe stretcher joke. On construction jobs the more experienced guy will send the new guy to go the shop to get a pipe stretcher telling him it is critical to get it ASAP. Of course there is no such thing as a pipe stretcher and the poor new guy eventually comes back empty handed and feeling awfully stupid.

In the same way you could knock your brains out trying to prove all sort of internet myths, like free fall and 8.8 seconds. Typical fools errand.

It's easier and less transparent then...

I typically don't engage in fools errands

feeling awfully stupid

You know what is really stupid that your dumb ass continues to fight those of us who frankly have figured it out. Then you come to a road block and you call it names. Do you know your just pathetic?

Thanks for the laugh...

No, this is an impossible task that only fools believe is solvable.

Really, do you beleive the tower collapse near or at freefall? You can't possibly be that stupid. Can you?

Lared,

I know that you are not stupid, and I'm tired of all the bickering. Building 7 fell in only about six seconds. That IS close to free fall speed. You don't have to even be an engineer to recognize this. The footage of the collapse makes this quite clear. Does this raise any suspicions for you? No one has been able to adequately explain this event. Doesn't it even pique your interest. What do you think about this?

- I.C.

Is there ANYTHING shown in the video footage that is clearly INCONSISTENT with all the other videos of various controlled demolitions? As far as I can tell there is not.

Mostly I think the controlled demo arguments are a distraction from other proven lies and coverups related to 911 - whistleblowers, P-Tech, the ISI wiretransfer, administration failures and lies etc. but the issue of Building 7 still really bugs me. It doesn't just sort of look like controlled demo as the collapse of the 2 towers did. It looks EXACTLY like controlled demo. And then there's the destruction of the evidence from an unexplained collapse.

The controlled demo thing is like a healing scab that you can't stop picking. I know it's not good to keep picking at it but sometimes you can't help yourself.

Wouldn't these people have SOME inkling that if fire and nothing else actually caused WTC7 to collapse that it would have likely collapsed in pieces parts, chunks breaking off of the scorched hulk and leaving that scorched hulk standing like pretty much EVERY steel frame building has throughout history? And it's not like the WTCs were flimsily built. Even more dubious was the somewhat hurried clean-up of the evidence in all three towers.

about 6 seconds. If memory serves me correctly the NIST determined it fell in about 18 seconds. The video commonly seen on the internet does not show enough detail to see the entire collapse sequence.

We are talking about the time it took for the top 4 corners of of the building - not the Penthouse which is another issue - to fall to the ground from their established height. It sure as heck was not 18 seconds.

So what video was NIST looking at?

but the penthouse and and other events indicate the internal structure was failing for 10 ~ 12 seconds before the outside frame gave away.

If the guts of a building are gone it is not very surprising that the outside fell quickly. In fact the internal structure collapsing tends to pull whatever is left down quickly.

The point is the top corners of building fell to the ground at near free fall speed despite having intact steel structure below them.

"In fact the internal structure collapsing tends to pull whatever is left down quickly."

just like a controlled demo.

By the by you didn't answer my question about what video NIST was referencing.

My real question to you LARED is what about the video footage - the 3 or 4 angles available to the public - is clearly INCONSISTENT with controlled demolitions?

Failure Sequence Timeline Failure Sequence Timeline
Observation from CNN Net Dub 7 47.avi

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf

Unless they just put up ".avi" to confuse people...

I stand corrected it took 8.2 seconds for global collapse to start. Then it took about 6 seconds to collapse.

Surely there will be attempts, models and the like.

I've never seen it.

The 9/11 Commission said 10 seconds. The consensus on this board seems
to be 15 or 15 seconds.

Is Jimmy Walter framing the issue dishonestly?

shows 8.5 seconds-- I know the seismic vibrations are about 8.5 seconds. I don't know what videos he has, the ones I've seen show around 10 seconds for the collapse, but at the end it is hard to tell with all the dust. If you go by the seismic evidence it is 8.5 seconds.

In any case, I suspect if someone had a good explanation for how the buildings fell in 10 or even 15 seconds, in the pattern they did, they might be able to win the prize.

I've been saying from the start that physics proves the govenment's conspiracy theory to be a lie. Not just at the WTC, but at the Pentagon and Shanksville.

I'm sure the "Earth is 6,000 years old" crowd here will disagree?

how to shut up the government's big mouth frogs!

;o)