The 911 million dollar challenge

[warner]

The people at the icke forum are planning a Randi type challenge. They are thinking of putting money into a pot (someone suggested $1000 each) and offering it as a prize for anyone who can prove the 911 official story.
What do you reckon the chances are of any none conspiracy post not getting deleted?

davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7103

[T.A.M.]

Welcome to the forum warner.

I think they'd have to offer alot more thatn 1 Million to get the kind of evidence that they woud consider VALID.

TAM:)

[Hyperviolet]

I suspect the money would be impossible to win.

Outlandish demands from applicants like getting access to every video around the Pentagon, access to the hanger of UA 93 et cetera would likely be used as insurance so that the claimant could not "prove" the official story.

[robinson]

... They are thinking of putting money into a pot (someone suggested $1000 each) and offering it as a prize for anyone who can prove the 911 official story.

Can somebody point me to the official story? I didn't know there was one. Where is it?

[warner]

Welcome to the forum warner.

I think they'd have to offer alot more thatn 1 Million to get the kind of evidence that they woud consider VALID.

TAM:)


Thanks for the welcome T.A.M :)

[T.A.M.]

Can somebody point me to the official story? I didn't know there was one. Where is it?

The one you have heard in the news, CNN/MSNBC is the one the CTists refer to as the "Official Story".

TAM:)

[JamesB]

Welcome to the forum warner.

I think they'd have to offer alot more thatn 1 Million to get the kind of evidence that they woud consider VALID.

TAM:)

Exactly, from that American Truth site I was talking about yesterday:

http://www.amtruth.com/corrections

If I find any mistakes in the information and rational printed in the book, I'll post them here.

Please submit any research/evidence that would prove that I made a mistake (and no, I don't consider the U.S. government's story and the 9/11 Commission Report as conclusive evidence).

[Viper Daimao]

The one you have heard in the news, CNN/MSNBC is the one the CTists refer to as the "Official Story".

TAM:)

also known as: reality.

[warner]

I suspect the money would be impossible to win.

Outlandish demands from applicants like getting access to every video around the Pentagon, access to the hanger of UA 93 et cetera would likely be used as insurance so that the claimant could not "prove" the official story.

:)

I agree.

Although they wouldn't have to go that far. I have disproved points with them only to see the same people making the same points on the same forum and others at a later date.

[T.A.M.]

:)

I agree.

Although they wouldn't have to go that far. I have disproved points with them only to see the same people making the same points on the same forum and others at a later date.

They have a finite list of theories and cherry picked quotes. When one becomes old, they let it rest for a little bit, bring up another point, but then go back to the original a little while later...If we can say nothing positive about them, we can at least say the truthers LOVE TO RECYCLE...IDEAS.

TAM:)

[robinson]

The one you have heard in the news, CNN/MSNBC is the one the CTists refer to as the "Official Story".

TAM:)

Are you saying if you can prove what was reported on CNN/MSNBC was in error, you get a MILLION DOLLARS!!





















sweet

[The_Fire]

This is lizard Icke we are talking about here, so I hereby go official with a prediction of the following cop-out if someone actually takes the challenge and win:

"You are a lizard in disguise and a member of the New World Order/Illuminati. Of cause you've got the evidence: They are all manufactured."

Or something to the same effect, spiced up with a photo of the applicant run through a photoshop filter proving that the applicant is a reptile.

[The_Fire]

Are you saying if you can prove what was reported on CNN/MSNBC was in error, you get a MILLION DOLLARS!!
sweet

Wrong way around: If you can prove that the official story is TRUE, THEN you get the million........I think....

[Horatius]

I suspect the money would be impossible to win.

Outlandish demands from applicants like getting access to every video around the Pentagon, access to the hanger of UA 93 et cetera would likely be used as insurance so that the claimant could not "prove" the official story.



This brings up a good question: is George Bush et al. eligible to win? We can't really provide any new evidence, and I'm assuming the old evidence won't count (as they haven't yet been convinced by it), so could GB win by ordering, say, all of the flight 93 debris to be released to the public?


Because I expect that's what it would take - and none of us can do that.

[nicepants]

The people at the icke forum are planning a Randi type challenge. They are thinking of putting money into a pot (someone suggested $1000 each) and offering it as a prize for anyone who can prove the 911 official story.
What do you reckon the chances are of any none conspiracy post not getting deleted?

davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7103

I guess the Million Dollar Question (pun intended) would be "what constitutes 'proof' of the official story"

A far more logical type of prize would be offered for proving a specific conspiracy false or impossible....but no award will be offered for that, it happens on a daily basis.

[Gravy]

Can somebody point me to the official story? I didn't know there was one. Where is it?People usually refer to the "official" story of the causes of the attacks as that found in the 9/11 Commission report, and the official story of the building collapses as that found in the NIST NCSTAR reports and the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report.

[twinstead]

The is a fine example of misplacement of the burden of proof elevated to a work of art.

[warner]

People usually refer to the "official" story of the causes of the attacks as that found in the 9/11 Commission report, and the official story of the building collapses as that found in the NIST NCSTAR reports and the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report.

Hey Gravy i watch the video hard talk i think it was called where you battered the loose change duo all over the place.

Hats off to you man.

[Gravy]

The people at the icke forum are planning a Randi type challenge. They are thinking of putting money into a pot (someone suggested $1000 each) and offering it as a prize for anyone who can prove the 911 official story.
What do you reckon the chances are of any none conspiracy post not getting deleted?

davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7103A thousand people contributing a thousand dollars each to David Icke? That's even funnier than the concept of shapeshifting reptilian overlords.

[Gravy]

Hey Gravy i watch the video hard talk i think it was called where you battered the loose change duo all over the place.

Hats off to you man.
Thanks Warner. Welcome to the forums.

[warner]

A thousand people contributing a thousand dollars each to David Icke? That's even funnier than the concept of shapeshifting reptilian overlords.


I dont think its serious i just posted it because of the audacity of the thing.

In saying that he does generate large sums of cash.

[warner]

Thanks Warner. Welcome to the forums.

Nice to be here thanks for the welcome.

Ive spent years arguing with woo woos i never new the net could be such a welcoming place:)

[T.A.M.]

Hey Gravy i watch the video hard talk i think it was called where you battered the loose change duo all over the place.

Hats off to you man.

"Hardfire".

If you think his duel with the duo was good, look up his battle with Fetzer.

TAM:)

[warner]

"Hardfire".

If you think his duel with the duo was good, look up his battle with Fetzer.

TAM:)

Lol thanks hard talk is the BBC show.

I will check out your Fetzer recommendation, ty.

[MikeW]

The people at the icke forum are planning a Randi type challenge. They are thinking of putting money into a pot (someone suggested $1000 each) and offering it as a prize for anyone who can prove the 911 official story.
Jimmy Walter did this already, maybe 3 years back? Just for the WTC, but it was something like a million dollars if you could "prove the official story".

Of course in reality it was nothing of the kind, & laden down with conditions that made it impossible. So you had to show mathematically how it was possible for the collapse to create "pools of molten steel", for instance, and prove how the towers could fall in 8 & 10 seconds (I think they used to claim that?) The options to say "there were no pools of molten steel" or "the towers took longer to fall" didn't exist.

No-one took it particularly seriously, then. The general view was, if Walter has all that money, why doesn't he use it to carry out some investigations to prove his point, rather than just trying to create a little ammunition for Internet debates? This will be exactly the same: utterly pointless.

[MikeW]

I had a look & it seems the Walters challenge is still around. Check out the conditions at http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm

[Stellafane]

if Icke did this he'd be nuts (I know, I know, I'm just saying even more nuts). Unless he worded things so the conditions are really ludicrous -- which of course could then be used against him -- he'd be running a real big risk that someone would call him on it. For instance, I can imagine someone pointing to the NIST report, eyewitness testimony, and Bin Laden's confession as proof, and then promptly going to court to claim the prize. If Icke ran into some judge whose view of proof was "beyond a reasonable doubt," he could find himself on the hook for the million. At a minimum he'd have to defend himself in court and be further exposed as a lunatic and a fraud (what a combo).

[Hyperviolet]

"Hardfire".

If you think his duel with the duo was good, look up his battle with Fetzer.

TAM:)


Indeed, although the Loose Change debate was good, it wasn't the unadulterated decimation that Fetzer was subjected to.

[MarkyX]

This sounds like Jimmy Walter's "million dollar challenge", which had impossible obstacles to go through due to strawman and BS, such as "Explain how the building collapsed in 8 seconds without explosives"

[Hyperviolet]

This sounds like Jimmy Walter's "million dollar challenge", which had impossible obstacles to go through due to strawman and BS, such as "Explain how the building collapsed in 8 seconds without explosives"

Indeed.

A big problem also would be explaining it to their satisfaction.

I mean, you can give them a sound explantion of virtually every aspect they criticise only to be met with :

"Nah, i dont think that's what happened"

[warner]

if Icke did this he'd be nuts (I know, I know, I'm just saying even more nuts). Unless he worded things so the conditions are really ludicrous -- which of course could then be used against him -- he'd be running a real big risk that someone would call him on it. For instance, I can imagine someone pointing to the NIST report, eyewitness testimony, and Bin Laden's confession as proof, and then promptly going to court to claim the prize. If Icke ran into some judge whose view of proof was "beyond a reasonable doubt," he could find himself on the hook for the million. At a minimum he'd have to defend himself in court and be further exposed as a lunatic and a fraud (what a combo).


Just so no one gets the wrong idea.


Icke hasn't done it its some woo woo on his board proposing it. Take a look at the link i posted.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

They are thinking of putting money into a pot (someone suggested $1000 each). . .


"Wha? 'Put money into a pot'? Whooaaa... I thought it was totally messed up that you'd be tellin' me to do something I always do anyway!"

[warner]

"Wha? 'Put money into a pot'? Whooaaa... I thought it was totally messed up that you'd be tellin' me to do something I always do anyway!"

I'm not telling anyone to do anything. I just posted what was being suggested on another forum.

[Stellafane]

Just so no one gets the wrong idea.


Icke hasn't done it its some woo woo on his board proposing it. Take a look at the link i posted.

I stand corrected -- thanks!

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm not telling anyone to do anything. I just posted what was being suggested on another forum.


Sorry. I added the double quotes to indicate that I was "quoting" a fictional truther. Perhaps using and would have been more obvious. ;)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Indeed.

A big problem also would be explaining it to their satisfaction.

I mean, you can give them a sound explantion of virtually every aspect they criticise only to be met with :

"Nah, i dont think that's what happened"
Which touches on why this particular challenge is so incredibly stupid it is almost painful. They make a high-level definition of the challenge in must the same way as the JREF MDC does, but then they fail to provide a finite list of criteria that must be met in order for the challenge to have been met. Additionally, such things as the aforementioned "prove the buildings collapsed in 8 seconds" set up potentionally unwinnable conditions.

[TerryUK]

It would, of course, be impossible to prove that the UsGov. was not involved in 911 , how could that be done?
A lot easier to prove they were involved though (assuming they were of course)

[stateofgrace]

It would, of course, be impossible to prove that the UsGov. was not involved in 911 , how could that be done?
A lot easier to prove they were involved though (assuming they were of course)

Now, now Terry you almost made a substantive statement there, don't be shy, say what’s on your mind.

So it is easy to prove the USG were involved? Please proceed.

[TerryUK]

So it is easy to prove the USG were involved? Please proceed.

I said "easier" , not "easy" :)
Anything that's possible is going to be easier than something that's impossible, so, as it's obviously impossible to prove USGov is NOT involved, it must be easier to prove they are involved - assuming they are.

[stateofgrace]

I said "easier" , not "easy" :)
Anything that's possible is going to be easier than something that's impossible, so, as it's obviously impossible to prove USGov is NOT involved, it must be easier to prove they are involved - assuming they are.

Oh I see,

So it possibly easier to prove that they were possibly involved than it is possibly impossible to disprove they weren’t involved, possibly? But then again it is possible they were kind of involved....... Oh for goodness sake Terry, come on what is on your mind?

[robinson]

So, you win a million for proving the official version, or disproving the official version? I'm getting confused here.

I'm also still waiting for a link to the web site with the official version.

[T.A.M.]

They will give a million to who ever can prove to them that the "official account" of what happened on 9/11, and who carried it out, is IN FACT true.

However, do not be decieved, for they consider the FBI, CIA, FAA/NORAD, FEMA, and NIST, to be working for the REAL PURPS, the USG, so all evidence from these sources will be considered faked.

TAM;)

[Minadin]

Oh I see,

So it possibly easier to prove that they were possibly involved than it is possibly impossible to disprove they weren’t involved, possibly? But then again it is possible they were kind of involved....... Oh for goodness sake Terry, come on what is on your mind?

I think he's saying that it's awfully difficult to prove a negative.

[robinson]

They will give a million to who ever can prove to them that the "official account" of what happened on 9/11, and who carried it out, is IN FACT true.

However, do not be decieved, for they consider the FBI, CIA, FAA/NORAD, FEMA, and NIST, to be working for the REAL PURPS, the USG, so all evidence from these sources will be considered faked.

TAM;)

I'm trying hard to follow this. You get a million dollars if you can prove the official version is true? Because they don't think it is true???

So the burden of proof is to show what is accepted is in fact true? So proving the official version is in error, gets you nothing???

I don't get it. What is the point of the challenge?

[R.Mackey]

No, they won't give you a million dollars unless you can prove it to them.

Little do they realize that it is they who are the stumbling block. To wit, I could offer a million dollars to anyone who managed to teach Killtown vector calculus, and the prize would go unclaimed forever. This, of course, does not mean that vector calculus is false.

[nicepants]

Have a look at some of the requirements for the $1Million:

Compiled from http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm


all evidence and points presented by Scholars for Truth (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/), Professor Jones (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html), and Morgan Reynolds (http://nomoregames.net/) must be refuted
Contestants must show exactly how the concrete was pulverized and ejected with detailed drawings).
Since all the concrete was pulverized, entrants must explain this in detail.Bolding mine

Apparently proving a false claim is part of the homework required for the $1M.

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.

Bolding again mine.

I'd be interested to know who "verifies" this material, and if the verification is done by the same people who would be providing the $1M prize. Seems like both of those pieces of information should be readily available.

[PhantomWolf]

Well I guess since you have to refute all of Jones' points then you could show that all the concrete was pulverised, after all about the only thing I have seen him get right is that it wasn't.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You know... this challenge is also impossible to meet in that they never explain what they consider to be the "official story".

Even the requirements nicepants listed indicates that they're just making up their own details of the "official story".

They have their own idea of what the "official story" is, and if you were to even attempt to support what's laid out in things like the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST's report, it's pretty damn likely that that's not what they had in mind...

...but they don't clarify, and the little tidbits they have dropped indicated a rather significant lack of understanding, so... this is a completely pointless challenge.

[uk_dave]

I would much rather that they pool their money (a million? In their dreams) and pay for an independant analysis of the wtc towers collapse, carried out by a reputeable firm of structural engineers.

Likewise, to pay for reports regarding shanksville and the pentagon.

But then, if they did that they wouldn't have a hobby any more.

[LashL]

I would much rather that they pool their money (a million? In their dreams) and pay for an independant analysis of the wtc towers collapse, carried out by a reputeable firm of structural engineers.

Likewise, to pay for reports regarding shanksville and the pentagon.

But then, if they did that they wouldn't have a hobby any more.

Members of the Twoof MovementTM seem to be terribly averse to putting their money where their mouths are.

[Revolutionary91]

Miragememories issued a challenge on LC regarding wtc7

No diagrams.

No cut & paste from the 10,000 pages of NIST hypnosis.

In your own words narrate in detail the story of the WTC 7 collapse from a few seconds before the east penthouse collapsed.

I'm interested in the actual story that explains your OCT convictions regarding the internal and external collapse of WTC 7, a building 47 stories tall, built of modern concrete and steel construction, over-engineered to allow for major renovations, over-engineered to allow for a hydro sub station, a building suffering from some declared corned damage and a multi-story gouge, and lots of southside smoke with two floors that showed visible unfought fires. Fires that were largely extinguished prior to the buildings 5:20 pm collapse.

I'd like to know how, 'after the east penthouse collapsed', you can explain in your own words, the instantaneous structural disintegration of the lower, city block area supporting structure, that lead to the complete building symmetrically collapsing in under 10 seconds at virtually freefall speed, while maintaining a virtually level roofline, showing no visible flames from the supposedly "fully fire involved building" bellowing out of windows due to expelled air, landing mostly in it's own footprint, and leaving debris hotspots similar to those found at WTC 1 and WTC 2?

CTs are always asked here to explain what happened on 911 in their own words, it's a fair challenge.

[Dave Rogers]

Miragememories issued a challenge on LC regarding wtc7

Quote:
No diagrams.

No cut & paste from the 10,000 pages of NIST hypnosis.

In your own words narrate in detail the story of the WTC 7 collapse from a few seconds before the east penthouse collapsed.

I'm interested in the actual story that explains your OCT convictions regarding the internal and external collapse of WTC 7, a building 47 stories tall, built of modern concrete and steel construction, over-engineered to allow for major renovations, over-engineered to allow for a hydro sub station, a building suffering from some declared corned damage and a multi-story gouge, and lots of southside smoke with two floors that showed visible unfought fires. Fires that were largely extinguished prior to the buildings 5:20 pm collapse.

I'd like to know how, 'after the east penthouse collapsed', you can explain in your own words, the instantaneous structural disintegration of the lower, city block area supporting structure, that lead to the complete building symmetrically collapsing in under 10 seconds at virtually freefall speed, while maintaining a virtually level roofline, showing no visible flames from the supposedly "fully fire involved building" bellowing out of windows due to expelled air, landing mostly in it's own footprint, and leaving debris hotspots similar to those found at WTC 1 and WTC 2?


CTs are always asked here to explain what happened on 911 in their own words, it's a fair challenge.

I've italicised the bits that make it an unfair challenge. A narrative that included the bits MirageMemories wanted it to include, wouldn't be the narrative of the actual WTC7 collapse.

Dave

[Revolutionary91]

I've italicised the bits that make it an unfair challenge. A narrative that included the bits MirageMemories wanted it to include, wouldn't be the narrative of the actual WTC7 collapse.

Dave


Ok, give us your narrative.

[ref]

Hey Rev, why isn't j911ob aka pdoh banned as a sock puppet in your forum? Just asking.

[Horatius]

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.



These guys like to throw around challenges similar to the JREF's challenge, but it's the highlighted part that makes all the difference in the world. The JREF MDC is set up such that, prior to the challenge, what constitutes a "win" is clearly defined, and can be identified as such by anyone, just by looking - no "judgement" or "verification" needed.

With these "challenges", there is no assurance ahead of time that any particular piece of evidence or argument will win, which gives them an out - they can simply claim that the panel of experts have decided not to verify the argument, and you lose.

Without celarly defined rules for judging a winner, which anyone can apply, it is a fundametally unfair deal.

[Revolutionary91]

Hey Rev, why isn't j911ob aka pdoh banned as a sock puppet in your forum? Just asking.\

Do you have any proof he is a sock puppet? Are you saying you should be banned there now because you are a sock puppet?

[ref]

\

Do you have any proof he is a sock puppet? Are you saying you should be banned there now because you are a sock puppet?

I was already banned there, because I was one :) but that doesn't really matter. I already said what I had in mind there. I just thought, why don't the same rules apply to everyone. J911ob is pdoherty, and you can see me calling him Paul without him contesting it. Everybody knows who he is.

[Revolutionary91]

I was already banned there, because I was one :) but that doesn't really matter. I already said what I had in mind there. I just thought, why don't the same rules apply to everyone. J911ob is pdoherty, and you can see me calling him Paul without him contesting it. Everybody knows who he is.

So you have no proof. I will pass your concern to Dylan and see if he will ban all sock puppets including ones from here.

[ref]

So you have no proof. I will pass your concern to Dylan and see if he will ban all sock puppets including ones from here.

Well it was not my concern, more of a question towards a forums administrator. Do whatever you want. I don't want to start a banfest. But just wondering, why pick out some people as socks, but not others. What makes the difference who gets cut.

But back to the original topic :rolleyes: They'll never pay a million to anybody, since they'll never be convinced. I could offer a million to anybody convincing me that earth was flat. I know I'll never believe that, so I never have to pay.

[Revolutionary91]

Ref why dont you have a go at thw wtc7 challenge?

[ref]

Ref why dont you have a go at thw wtc7 challenge?

After removing all the bias that Dave Rogers pointed out, what is there left. Explaining in my own words, why the building collapsed? It collapsed because of the debris damage and fires, confirmed by dozens of firemen. The scene was evacuated because it was so dangerous. The "pull it" comment is so laughable, it almost makes me sad. You can see boloboffin's video if you like. There were no explosions heard. No evidence of demolition. Massive evidence of the fires and debris. That is, if you choose to believe the people on the scene, and I do. The toppling over issues and other similar topics have all been discussed in length here. Every CT claim has been debunked. There is no reason to believe is was demolition. What is the challenge? For me to write a report like NIST is doing right now? I'll never do that. Let the experts do their work.

If I can credit the truth movement for something, it is for making so old claims that everybody can see they have no evidence. The WTC 7 has been debated since 2002. Someone came up with the idea, that controlled demolition could work on a burnt out and damaged building. Someone came up with the idea, that it was rigged before 9/11. Someone came up with the idea, that the Fire Department made the decision to demolish it. Someone came up with the idea, that we see squibs in the upper corner, but nobody could hear them exploding. Someone came up with the idea, that there were no fires. Someone came up with the idea, that FDNY are liars. Any controlled demolition theory involves FDNY, there is no way around it. These ideas seem so absurd, I can't believe anyone in the world believes them. But they actually have an entire movement, who believes them. That is what can be called a collective drought of critical thinking or plain ignorance. Maybe wishful thinking that something was wrong with 9/11, so they could have someone to blame in US. Maybe reluctance to admit that they were once wrong, scared to lose their faces. Well they are wrong, and longer they claims these absurd theories, the more scared they are to change their views and the more stuck they become. Endless cycle. There is one way around it. Open your mind to opposing views. Start thinking from the other point of the view, and see what supports that theory. Then come back to your old theory and see how much you can find supporting that theory. Youtube vs. real fire fighters on the scene. Theologian vs. CD experts on the scene. Dylan vs. Daniel Nigro. It's not hard to choose. It should not be hard for anyone to choose the right one. But to some people it still is. I wonder why.

[Regnad Kcin]

911 million dollars? Sweet!

[Dave Rogers]

Ok, give us your narrative.

Well, I'm not a structural engineer, so I suspect a lot of this may be inaccurate or loosely defined, but I'd say it was something like this.

The building was seriously damaged and set on fire by falling debris from WTC1. Large, uncontrolled fires burned on most of the 47 floors, in what one of the firemen in attendence described as "the largest office fire in the history of New York, or possibly the world". At some point, a combination of residual stress from the redistribution of loads around the damaged parts of the building, differential thermal expansion of the structure, and asymmetrical loads due to sagging of floor trusses caused one or more of the core support columns to fail. This failure removed enough support from below the east penthouse that the remaining support columns were unable to hold its weight, and the east penthouse then collapsed into the building. As it fell through the structure, it caused massive structural damage, which rapidly propagated throughout the building. In particular, the construction of the trusses at low levels caused this damage to propagate laterally across the building, causing a general failure of the structure at low level - probably about the 5th to 7th floor. The effect of this was very similar to the removal of low level support beams in a controlled demolition; the majority of the building began to accelerate downwards under gravity, and as the remaining structural members struck either the ground or the lower structure of the building, they were unable to offer significant resistance to the fall. As a result, the building collapsed rapidly from this point, although significantly more slowly than an object falling from its roof in free-fall. One result of the main collapse being initiated by the penthouse collapse is that the structural damage to the centre of the building preceded the collapse, so there was a tendency for the outer parts of the building to be pulled inwards, giving a relatively compact debris pile; however, videos of the collapse and the general shape of the debris pile show that the collapse was much more chaotic and the debris pile much more widely spread than would be expected from a controlled explosive demolition.

As the building collapsed, its internal volume decreased rapidly. In some areas of the building, this created regions of high pressure. Shock waves from the collapse, progressing through the building, broke upper storey windows, and the high pressure air exited through these windows, taking other debris with it.

I could say more, but I've too much experience on this forum of Miragememories's contempt for any narrative that doesn't agree with his preconceived notions to be bothered, given that he's not offering any reward.

Dave

[nicepants]

These guys like to throw around challenges similar to the JREF's challenge, but it's the highlighted part that makes all the difference in the world. The JREF MDC is set up such that, prior to the challenge, what constitutes a "win" is clearly defined, and can be identified as such by anyone, just by looking - no "judgement" or "verification" needed.

With these "challenges", there is no assurance ahead of time that any particular piece of evidence or argument will win, which gives them an out - they can simply claim that the panel of experts have decided not to verify the argument, and you lose.

Without celarly defined rules for judging a winner, which anyone can apply, it is a fundametally unfair deal.

Exactly. I wrote to the creator of the contest with a few questions, one of which, being "who are the PHDs, engineers, etc who determine the winner".
The contest is no longer active. We only had spurious question like yours. No serious entrants.

This should have been an indication that the "rules" are somewhat ambiguous and need to be clarified. (A FAQ page, perhaps?)

Your nitpicking about there being some chunkcs of concrete left is an example of such. Clearly, the photos show that over 90% of the concrete was pulverized and then dispersed in a cloud that cannot be explained. Look at any other building collapse and you can see this has never happened before or since, except in nuclear underground explosions.

In his page, he states that "all the concrete was pulverized", which I pointed out was incorrect. So apparently noting a 10% discrepancy (which would equate to tens of thousands of pounds) is "nitpicking". Not-to-mention, the author can apparently tell by only looking at photos that 90% of the concrete in the towers was turned to dust. Add to that the fact that the collapse of these towers looks like nothing we've ever seen before...nevermind the fact that no building that high has ever collapsed, or been hit by screaming 757s.

I also asked him why he ended the contest. If he really wants to know the truth, and isn't afraid of losing, what's there to lose?

[Revolutionary91]

After removing all the bias that Dave Rogers pointed out, what is there left. Explaining in my own words, why the building collapsed? It collapsed because of the debris damage and fires, confirmed by dozens of firemen. The scene was evacuated because it was so dangerous. The "pull it" comment is so laughable, it almost makes me sad. You can see boloboffin's video if you like. There were no explosions heard. No evidence of demolition. Massive evidence of the fires and debris. That is, if you choose to believe the people on the scene, and I do. The toppling over issues and other similar topics have all been discussed in length here. Every CT claim has been debunked. There is no reason to believe is was demolition. What is the challenge? For me to write a report like NIST is doing right now? I'll never do that. Let the experts do their work.

If I can credit the truth movement for something, it is for making so old claims that everybody can see they have no evidence. The WTC 7 has been debated since 2002. Someone came up with the idea, that controlled demolition could work on a burnt out and damaged building. Someone came up with the idea, that it was rigged before 9/11. Someone came up with the idea, that the Fire Department made the decision to demolish it. Someone came up with the idea, that we see squibs in the upper corner, but nobody could hear them exploding. Someone came up with the idea, that there were no fires. Someone came up with the idea, that FDNY are liars. Any controlled demolition theory involves FDNY, there is no way around it. These ideas seem so absurd, I can't believe anyone in the world believes them. But they actually have an entire movement, who believes them. That is what can be called a collective drought of critical thinking or plain ignorance. Maybe wishful thinking that something was wrong with 9/11, so they could have someone to blame in US. Maybe reluctance to admit that they were once wrong, scared to lose their faces. Well they are wrong, and longer they claims these absurd theories, the more scared they are to change their views and the more stuck they become. Endless cycle. There is one way around it. Open your mind to opposing views. Start thinking from the other point of the view, and see what supports that theory. Then come back to your old theory and see how much you can find supporting that theory. Youtube vs. real fire fighters on the scene. Theologian vs. CD experts on the scene. Dylan vs. Daniel Nigro. It's not hard to choose. It should not be hard for anyone to choose the right one. But to some people it still is. I wonder why.

So you can pre empt the report which has been delayed again.

[Revolutionary91]

Large, uncontrolled fires burned on most of the 47 floors, in what one of the firemen in attendence described as "the largest office fire in the history of New York, or possibly the world".

Im going to have to ask for evidence of this dave.

[stateofgrace]

So you can pre empt the report which has been delayed again.

So you can lay down lay down a challenge and when it is addressed, dismiss it right?

Basically you are saying the challenge is now null and void because the report has not come out, right?

[Dave Rogers]

Im going to have to ask for evidence of this dave.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Pages 41-44 include quotes from firemen in attendence. I note from this that Mark hasn't been able to trace the specific quote, "Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst", so I'll concede that there is doubt over the origin of that specific quote. There are several accounts in the paper, however, that state that all or nearly all floors of WTC7 were burning heavily just before it collapsed.

Dave

[Revolutionary91]

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Pages 41-44 include quotes from firemen in attendence. I note from this that Mark hasn't been able to trace the specific quote, "Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst", so I'll concede that there is doubt over the origin of that specific quote. There are several accounts in the paper, however, that state that all or nearly all floors of WTC7 were burning heavily just before it collapsed.

Dave


Official reports seem to have 14 floors maximum on fire. That isnt most of 47. Can you explain why no fire or sparks are seen billowing out of windows during the collapse?

[Dave Rogers]

Official reports seem to have 14 floors maximum on fire. That isnt most of 47. Can you explain why no fire or sparks are seen billowing out of windows during the collapse?

Official reports list 14 floors which were known to be on fire at the time of the collapse - do they state that none of the others were? As for fire and sparks, the fires were certainly concentrated towards the south side of the building; can you point me to a video of the collapse taken from the south side, where one would expect to see such things?

Note that smoke is seen coming out of north side windows during the collapse; it's what the truth movement refers to as "squibs", and claims as proof of controlled demolition. In effect, you're suggesting that the absence of visible emissions from the windows is inconsistent with fire and damage initiated collapse, whereas the more common truther explanation is that the presence of the same emissions is also incompatible with fire and damage initiated collapse. I suggest you think about this, and decide what you would expect to see in fire and damage initiated collapse, then we can see whether we see it.

Dave