$1M Controlled Demolition Challenge?

[alienentity]

In response to Heiwa's somewhat fraudulent offer of $1M, I propose that we develop a $1M challenge to the heroes of 9/11 truth if they can demonstrate something along these lines:

1) A controlled demolition of a highrise steel-structured building without conventional explosives
2) Some form of Thermite or Thermate (nano thermite as well) as proposed by Dr. Steven Jones must be used
3) Energy Beam weapons could be used (as proposed by Fetzer/Wood et al) provided they were positioned in near-earth orbit. Ground-based weapons would not qualify.
4) No blasting caps, det cord or any other conventional means of detonation can be used - since no evidence was found at WTC collapse sites
4a) If conventional methods were used, any evidence of such found after demolition would disqualify the challengers.
5) Buildings would have to collapse in a fashion essentially identical to the 9/11 collapses, (WTC7 or WTC1 and 2, whichever is chosen as the model)
6) Pools of molten steel would need to be produced as a byproduct of the demolition, as claimed by Jones and Gage
7) Debris fires at temperatures of at least 1500 celsius would need to be present for several weeks after demolition.


Please feel free to propose refinements and modifications to the above, as well as any other suggestions (such as 'get lost you idiot') to improve the regime.

Have a lovely day.

Please check my latest video 'Controlled Demolition and Freefall:WTC7'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtG_0B4ypkg


I play a happy song for you.

 

[johnny karate]

8) It must be done in front of several hundred witnesses without any of them realizing it.

 

[alienentity]

8) It must be done in front of several hundred witnesses without any of them realizing it.

Yes, of course. Good point. The building would have to be in normal condition with all drywall intact, security systems functioning and so on.

In place of office workers, perhaps some form of security patrols perhaps?

 

[Horatius]

8) It must be done in front of several hundred witnesses Including Firefighters, Demolition Experts and Police without any of them realizing it.

Added some qualifiers.

 

[johnny karate]

I was being generous.

 

[alienentity]

'8) It must be done in front of several hundred witnesses Including Firefighters, Demolition Experts and Police without any of them realizing it.


Added some qualifiers. '



Just to clarify there were two distinct groups of witnesses to consider:

1) Office workers, security staff or equivalents present day-to-day while demolition charges would have been put in place
2) Eyewitnesses on the day of the 'demolition'

I'm not sure which group we're talking about.

 

[johnny karate]

I think both seems reasonable.

 

[Horatius]

I was being overly generous.

Added a qualifier.

 

[bill smith]

Nah....I think it should be offered to engineers as a puzzle to work out on paper. The object might be to coerce or shame Bazant into showing up himself so Heiwa can dismantle him in the full light of publicity . There would have to be a time limit on he offer too. Otherwise it could go on forever.

 

[alienentity]

Nah....I think it should be offered to engineers as a puzzle to work out on paper. The object might be to coerce or shame Bazant into showing up himself so Heiwa can dismantle him in the full light of publicity . There would have to be a time limit on he offer too. Otherwise it could go on forever.

Ah yes. That would have to happen as part of the preparations. Qualified engineers would have to be brought on board by Jones, Fetzer, Gage et al to work out all the details.

After that, they would assemble the materials and carry out the demolition under our controlled conditions.

So you satisfy both the theoretical and the real-world aspects of the 9/11 truth questions. For once and for all.

On the other hand, if it is left to amateur speculation, it will go on forever, as long as sightings of Elvis and Bigfoot.

We don't want that, do we?

Let the 'truth' movement rise to the challenge and prove their theories in a real-world test, full scale. That's the only way they can prove it.
The onus is on them, as it should be.

 

[Wolrab]

Nah....I think it should be offered to engineers as a puzzle to work out on paper. The object might be to coerce or shame Bazant into showing up himself so Heiwa can dismantle him in the full light of publicity . There would have to be a time limit on he offer too. Otherwise it could go on forever.

Did you used to write for a sitcom?

 

[alienentity]

Bill, Lemons and Pizza boxes aren't going to suffice. Not even close.

 

[Dog Town]

Did you used to write for a sitcom?

In Manchester, perhaps?

 

[beachnut]

Nah....I think it should be offered to engineers as a puzzle to work out on paper. The object might be to coerce or shame Bazant into showing up himself so Heiwa can dismantle him in the full light of publicity . There would have to be a time limit on he offer too. Otherwise it could go on forever.

The fact is Heiwa’s work is crap. Go ahead take his web page to any engineer you can find and see what you support is pure claptrap sprinkled with enough bs to fool you since you don’t have any real skills in engineer since you fell for the fraud of 911Turth and Heiwa work which looks like the work a kid or an alcoholic might do who hates the USA. Kid jumping on a bed, and other failed ideas are what you support without a clue.

Each time you post you display pure ignorance on 911. When will you submit the work of Heiwa to an engineer, I have already looked at it and found it to be junk; one engineer less to ask. I only have a master’s degree; you could look for a PhD to trump me.

Only 0.001 percent of all world engineers support your failed ideas on 9/11. Good news is you are more likely to find a delusion believing engineer than winning the Lotto big prize (where is Heiwa's Pulitzer Prize for breaking this wide open).

The fact is Heiwa can submit his rebuttal on Bazant to a journal and when published you will see Heiwa is full of idiotic ideas and in no way can he refute Bazant’s model. I assume you have no real training in science since you have fallen for fraudulent claims and lies.

 

[alienentity]

I think both seems reasonable.

I'll try to put some wording in there.

It also occurs to me that the building needs to be damaged somehow and set on fire in order to simulate the effects - it is reasonable to assume that some of the connections between explosives and controllers would be disrupted by these things.

If you were simulating WTC towers, you'd have large kerosene/office fires. In building 7 you'd have longer fires which could conceivably destroy your demolition wiring.

Not sure how this would play out.

 

[alienentity]

The fact is Heiwa can submit his rebuttal on Bazant to a journal and when published you will see Heiwa is full of idiotic ideas and in no way can he refute Bazant’s model. I assume you have no real training in science since you have fallen for fraudulent claims and lies. [/FONT][/COLOR]

It's quite obvious they would much prefer to have the matter settled, not in a scientific way, but in a public debate to be judged by the most unqualified persons available.

Why not just have the two jump in a boxing ring and duke it out? It would be about as relevant to the truth.

 

[nicepants]

It also occurs to me that the building needs to be damaged somehow and set on fire in order to simulate the effects

The problem with doing that is that if the buliding is structured like the WTC, and is damaged like the WTC was, it will collapse like the WTC did and truthers will claim victory.

 

[alienentity]

yeah, that's possible.

It would actually be harder to collapse a healthy building, so perhaps the challenge should be for pristine conditions only.
We'd have to stipulate steel beam conditions similar to WTC collapses as well- there aren't any melted steel beams in the WTC collapses, so they wouldn't be allowed in the experiment either.
And there would need to be eutectic erosion shown as well, as in the WTC conditions.

The EC is part of the conspiracy 'proof' of CD, so they'd have to recreate that as well.

OK, scratch off fires and other structural damage.

 

[alienentity]

I can't modify the 1st post anymore, so here's a repost with mods:

Proposed $1M Controlled Demolition Challenge

1) A controlled demolition of a highrise steel-structured building without conventional explosives
2) Some form of Thermite or Thermate (nano thermite as well) as proposed by Dr. Steven Jones must be used
3) Energy Beam weapons could be used (as proposed by Fetzer/Wood et al) provided they were positioned in near-earth orbit. Ground-based weapons would not qualify.
4) No blasting caps, det cord or any other conventional means of detonation can be used - since no evidence was found at WTC collapse sites
4a) If conventional methods were used, any evidence of such found after demolition would disqualify the challengers.
5) Buildings would have to collapse in a fashion essentially identical to the 9/11 collapses, (WTC7 or WTC1 and 2, whichever is chosen as the model)
6) Pools of molten steel would need to be produced as a byproduct of the demolition, as claimed by Jones and Gage
7) Debris fires at temperatures of at least 1500 celsius would need to be present for several weeks after demolition.
8) a) Security personnel simulating the presence of office workers or equivalents must be present day-to-day while demolition charges are put in place.
b) Eyewitnesses on the day of the 'demolition' must judge the building collapse.



Please feel free to propose refinements and modifications to the above, as well as any other suggestions (such as 'get lost you idiot') to improve the regime.

 

[bill smith]

I can't modify the 1st post anymore, so here's a repost with mods:

Proposed $1M Controlled Demolition Challenge

1) A controlled demolition of a highrise steel-structured building without conventional explosives
2) Some form of Thermite or Thermate (nano thermite as well) as proposed by Dr. Steven Jones must be used
3) Energy Beam weapons could be used (as proposed by Fetzer/Wood et al) provided they were positioned in near-earth orbit. Ground-based weapons would not qualify.
4) No blasting caps, det cord or any other conventional means of detonation can be used - since no evidence was found at WTC collapse sites
4a) If conventional methods were used, any evidence of such found after demolition would disqualify the challengers.
5) Buildings would have to collapse in a fashion essentially identical to the 9/11 collapses, (WTC7 or WTC1 and 2, whichever is chosen as the model)
6) Pools of molten steel would need to be produced as a byproduct of the demolition, as claimed by Jones and Gage
7) Debris fires at temperatures of at least 1500 celsius would need to be present for several weeks after demolition.
8) a) Security personnel simulating the presence of office workers or equivalents must be present day-to-day while demolition charges are put in place.
b) Eyewitnesses on the day of the 'demolition' must judge the building collapse.



Please feel free to propose refinements and modifications to the above, as well as any other suggestions (such as 'get lost you idiot') to improve the regime.

It may not be necessary to go to all this trouble after all. It looks like the guy in he attached video may have explained Bazant's theory to everybody's satisfaction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NaAcAgQgoY&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/