Canadians:Take this guy's money.

[triforcharity]

The vast majority of the posts on this thread have been moved to the General 9/11 Discussion thread because they had nothing to do with the topic. A number of others that were bickering or off-topic have been moved to Abandon All Hope.

There have already been too many modboxes in this thread. Pay attention them. Stay on topic. Stop the personal attacks. Stop the incivility. If not, prepare to face the consequences. Don't make me come back here with my thermite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

Huh? Say what?

/ot

 

[cmatrix]

The vast majority of the posts on this thread have been moved to the General 9/11 Discussion thread because they had nothing to do with the topic. A number of others that were bickering or off-topic have been moved to Abandon All Hope.

There have already been too many modboxes in this thread. Pay attention them. Stay on topic. Stop the personal attacks. Stop the incivility. If not, prepare to face the consequences. Don't make me come back here with my thermite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

Er what is the topic? I thought the topic was about a challenge offering $10000 to the first Canadian that can show how the official 9/11 conspiracy theory does not violate the laws of physics. That's all I have been posting about.

 

[jaydeehess]

Er what is the topic? I thought the topic was about a challenge offering $10000 to the first Canadian that can show how the official 9/11 conspiracy theory does not violate the laws of physics. That's all I have been posting about.

Actually, no, you had been argueing the case for a violation of the conservation of energy in the collapse of WTC 7.

The topic was the offer of money for proving that the collapse of WTC 7 did not contravene any laws of physics.

So back on topic then;
Is this money being held in trust anywhere?
Who will judge the merits of proofs offered?
What are the judge(s) qualifications?

It was suggested that the author of this offer has already stated that the money will not be paid out because in his opinion the collapse required an additional energy to account for the acelleration of one part of the final global collapse . If the offer is being made by this person and this person is to be the judge of the proofs then the offer is being made in bad faith since the merit of any and all proofs have already been pre-judged before even having been submitted.

If this is the case then why would anyone even bother to take the offer seriously?
If this is not the case then the answers to the above 3 questions must be answered before anyone WILL take the offer seriously.
Until then its open season for disabusing this specious offer IMHO

 

[T.A.M.]

It is fraudulent and should be shown to the authorities. The author and promoter of the challenge has already said that there is no way to win, because the event did violate the laws of physics, so in reality he is inviting people to participate in a contest THEY HAVE NO WAY OF WINNING.

TAM

 

[Bell]

Do the contestants have to pay to enter? If not then I doubt it is fraudulent.

It would be, for example, if I asked people for their money, in exchange offering them to read their minds and reveal what they really know about 9/11 but has been suppressed by years of government and JREF propaganda.

Also if I asked people for their money and offer them a change to win $10.000 if they proof to me that chocolate dipped moon bats with lasers on their heads exploded the WTC.

 

[T.A.M.]

Do the contestants have to pay to enter? If not then I doubt it is fraudulent.

It would be, for example, if I asked people for their money, in exchange offering them to read their minds and reveal what they really know about 9/11 but has been suppressed by years of government and JREF propaganda.

Also if I asked people for their money and offer them a change to win $10.000 if they proof to me that chocolate dipped moon bats with lasers on their heads exploded the WTC.

No he is just asking them for their time. If i set up a game show, like who wants to be a millionaire, and i know there is no way for the contestants to win, am i not acting in a fraudulent manner. Those contestants do not pay to play. What is the difference...people invited to participate in a contest that requires knowledge to win at no financial cost to themselves.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

It is fraudulent and should be shown to the authorities. The author and promoter of the challenge has already said that there is no way to win, because the event did violate the laws of physics, so in reality he is inviting people to participate in a contest THEY HAVE NO WAY OF WINNING.

TAM

It is fraud based on a failed opinion view of physics. Like the Heiwa delusion challenge.

 

[T.A.M.]

It is fraud based on a failed opinion view of physics. Like the Heiwa delusion challenge.

That is agreed...no doubt. Beyond that, however, is his intentional faud. In his mind, and publicly stated by the proprieter of the challenge, is that the laws of physics were broken. Hence, he is asking people to spend their time working ona problem, a challenge, that according to he himself, cannot be won...that is fraud.

TAM

 

[jaydeehess]

[specious offer]NASA says the Moon is made of rock and dust. I say its obvious that the Moon is made of cheese and challenge all Canadians to prove that it is rock and dust. I offer $10,000.00 CDN.
However, given my knowledge that it is actually cheese and since I will be the judge and arbitar of the challenge I know that I will never pay. (besides which, I am never going to actually demonstrate that I even have $10,000.00 spare change sitting around ready to be disbursed since I already know I will not be doleing it out)[/specious offer]

 

[jaydeehess]

10:30 am on the lotus coast of Canada. Wonder if cmatrix will care to continue to discuss this offer?

 

[T.A.M.]

If he is smart he will retract the offer, and delete all internet evidence of its existance before the authorities get wind of it.

TAM

 

[Furcifer]

Complaint filed with the Competition Bureau.

I've asked for an investigation into the contest to determine if it is a scam. If it is legitimate I've also inquired if a third party can verify the contest requirements had been met.

I've read NCSTAR 1A and there are no errors, the "laws of physics" have not been broken. F still equals ma, and this is true on all accounts.

more to follow

 

[DGM]

Complaint filed with the Competition Bureau.

I've asked for an investigation into the contest to determine if it is a scam. If it is legitimate I've also inquired if a third party can verify the contest requirements had been met.

I've read NCSTAR 1A and there are no errors, the "laws of physics" have not been broken. F still equals ma, and this is true on accounts.

more to follow

Why do I have the feeling that he'll soon include the disclaimer, "does not violate the laws of physics AS I UNDERSTAND THEM".

 

[tsig]

Why do I have the feeling that he'll soon include the disclaimer, "does not violate the laws of physics AS I UNDERSTAND THEM".

They're suggestions of physics.

 

[TJM]

I see cmatrix has revised the contest webpage, reproduced here:

$5000 - $10,000: WTC7 9/11 Challenge
Michael Fullerton, founder of Vernon 9/11 Truth, is offering $5000 to the first person anywhere in the world who can provide some specific answers relating to the 9/11 event. Until December 1st, a Canadian resident can receive $10,000 for submitting the first valid entry. Until December 1st, a professor in physics or engineering from the following Universities can receive $10,000 for submitting the first valid entry: Harvard, MIT, Yale, Oxford, Stanford, Columbia, Cornell and Princeton.

Applicants must explain precisely, using sound scientific terminology, how the official theory of the WTC 7 collapse, as supported by NIST (The National Institute of Standards and Technology), does not violate the laws of physics. NIST maintains WTC7 came down due to fire damage alone. WTC 7 was a 47 story building about the width and length of a football field that was not hit by a plane on 9/11. Applicants must explain how normal office fires caused 8 stories or about 100 feet of structure including the 58 perimeter columns and 25 massive core columns of WTC 7 to be effectively removed simultaneously floor by floor so that the building was able to free fall straight down symmetrically for at least 2.25 seconds. Applicants must explain how energy and momentum are conserved in the official NIST story. They must explain how a fire-initiated collapse would be symmetrical like a typical controlled demolition and not asymmetrical like every known collapse caused by fire. They must explain the "crimp" seen near the middle of the building as it started to fall. In controlled demolitions such a crimp is caused by blowing the middle columns first and then preceding to the sides so that the building falls in on itself and therefore minimizes damage to other buildings. How can fire be so considerate?
Answers can be submitted to info@vernon911truth.org and will be published on the www.vernon911truth.org site. Any others wishing to also offer pledges of money to sweeten the pot are more than welcome to.

Here you will find the details of the crackpot NIST theory: NIST NCSTAR 1A <rest of vapid truther rhetoric snipped>

Couldn't fined a cached version of the old requirements.

 

[T.A.M.]

Poor man, even in trying to post a "professional sounding" request or challenge, he couldn't keep the whiny little boy inside. Note the sarcasm of the fire being "considerate", and the "crackpot" nist theory. Pathetic really.

TAM

 

[uke2se]

I don't see how the "revised" version is any less fraudulent, as cmatrix still puts himself up as the arbiter, and the challenge becomes to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced.

 

[Sabrina]

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't NIST say that WTC7 fell due to a combination of the structural damage caused by the debris from WTC1 falling on it PLUS the fires? He's saying it's only the fires in that. He needs to revise it again.

 

[T.A.M.]

Sabrina,

No, the final report on wtc7 says the debris damage did not play a significant role in the collapse.

TAM

 

[TJM]

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't NIST say that WTC7 fell due to a combination of the structural damage caused by the debris from WTC1 falling on it PLUS the fires? He's saying it's only the fires in that. He needs to revise it again.

Description:
Determining the probable collapse sequence for WTC 7, NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.

http://www.nist.gov/bfrl/disaster_resilience/wtc/wtc7_collapse.cfm

ETA: TAM got it.