Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theorist Offers $100,000 Prize

  • Thread starter Thread starter polyb
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    conspiracy
Click For Summary
Jimmy Walter is offering a $100,000 reward to any engineering student who can prove the official explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Center during the September 11 attacks. He has invested over $3 million in promoting the conspiracy theory that the attacks were an inside job. Discussions highlight skepticism about the feasibility of providing proof that would satisfy Walter, given his apparent bias against the official narrative. Critics argue that the panel of expert engineers judging submissions would likely already accept the conventional explanation, making it difficult for any new evidence to be recognized. Overall, the conversation reflects a deep divide between belief in conspiracy theories and acceptance of established scientific explanations.
polyb
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
So do we have any takers?

Here's the link to the article:

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10574

Jimmy Walter has spent more than $3 million promoting a conspiracy theory the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States were "an inside job" and he is offering more cash to anyone who proves him wrong.

The millionaire activist is so convinced of a government cover-up he is offering a $100,000 reward to any engineering student who can prove the World Trade Center buildings crashed the way the government says.

In short, all you have to do is prove that the towers fell according to the 'official story' line. 100k, this should be easily worth the time. If you can prove it, I bet it would make a nice stocking stuffer for christmas!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not quite sure how willing he'd be to concede defeat on the matter if anyone did supply him with some sort of proof. He seems to be rather set in his ideas on the matter.
 
He does have the money though! I did a little net search on the guy and apparently this is the son of Jim Walter, most notably of "Jim Walter Homes".

Zogby found it reliable enough to post it on his sight. According to the article he has already advertised this in The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker and Newsweek. Apparently he willing to put his money where his mouth is if the full page ads have already been placed. As far as the 'proof' goes, well that very well could be costly and time consuming. Would it be worth it?

Of course I prefer my 'proof' to be around 80 or so, preferebly a scotch blend! :biggrin:
 
russ_watters said:
What, precisely, would convince him?

I don't know russ, take it up with him. If he can define those paramaters than would you be up for it?
 
err, I know a little bit about structural supports and heat effects on load factors. Would certified affadavits by credentialled metallurgists and design engineers carry any weight?
 
polyb said:
I don't know russ, take it up with him. If he can define those paramaters than would you be up for it?
From the article:
He said a panel of expert engineers would judge submissions from the students.
He would be hard-pressed to find an "expert engineer" who doesn't already accept the conventional explanation. So convincing and real panel of expert engineers would require only regurgitation of that explanation. Since I find it unlikely that it would be that easy, no, I don't think it'd be worth my time. Also:
"I don't trust any of these 'facts."'
If he won't accept any facts, there really isn't anything to discuss with him.
 
Last edited:
I think Russ already touched on this, but this panel of expert engineers must themselves be convinced that there is no way to prove the official explanation, right? Or else they could team up with a student and say, "hey kid, you present to this panel this proof that I create , and we'll split the cash 80/20." or something like that. I think this guy could serve his cause a little better if he could gather a large group of expert engineers that all say the official explanation is indeed unprovable. Then bring them to the press.
 
this is just a media hype for him. ignore the bastard
 
  • #10
lol, i enjoy how everyone is very dismissive.
because we all know, guys, that everything is how it's portrayed by the gov't.
 
  • #11
etc said:
lol, i enjoy how everyone is very dismissive.
because we all know, guys, that everything is how it's portrayed by the gov't.
9/11 was first explained by scientists and engineers hired by media outlets - a year before the government released its report.
 
  • #12
have anyone seen the Lone Gunmen episode that aired prior to September 11th by FOX in which an inside faction of the government posing as terrorists hijacks a 727 by remote control and targets the World Trade Center?

Transcript of the episode:
http://propagandamatrix.com/The_Lone_Gunmen_Realm_Pilot_Episode.htm
Video of the episode:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/video/lonegunmanpilot.wmv

Lone Gunmen/X-Files actor, Dean Haglund stated that after years of writing the X-files, the FBI and NASA would approach Chris Carter with plots for stories.

interview with Dean Haglund
http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/181204haglundclip.mp3
 
  • #13
ol, i enjoy how everyone is very dismissive.
because we all know, guys, that everything is how it's portrayed by the gov't.

As I enjoy how you are very naive. Because we all know that nothing the government says can be the truth. :rolleyes:
 
  • #14
Hurkyl said:
As I enjoy how you are very naive. Because we all know that nothing the government says can be the truth. :rolleyes:

And what the mass media says? :rolleyes:
 
  • #15
no dudes, for real, the mass media's right and honourable too.
 
  • #16
mass media is dumb and only wants what sells and raises ratings. would you like religious things included on our TV so you watch us? no problem! here you go, have some fries with that! please, would you like a white man as your anchor? no problem! hey, would you like to keep bill oreily on? no problem! anyway. i don't even want to get into the whole topic of how dumb and pathetic general public is.

Burnsys: hey, thanks! i completely forgot that i saw that Pilot episode. i just now realized the connection after almost 3.5 years! it does seem a bit 'coincidental' but i don't want to jump into any conclusions and urge you not to.
 
  • #17
mass media is a dumb thing for dumb people, i agree, but i don't fully understand your reasoning. bill oreily (sp?) and religion? the more free speach the better, and I'm pretty sure that religion and media aren't suppose to be seperated.

meh, ignore me, I'm alone (so alone) and grumpy. :)
 
  • #18
I did a quick google search and came up with this...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
It's an interview with an engineer on the topic. He seems to know what he's talking about and it makes perfect sense to me even though I'm not educated really in engineering.
There are two popular points I have heard from the conspiracy theorists.
1) The building was supposed to be able to withstand a fire and could not have been disturbed to such a degree as to make it collapse from the fire. To which the engineer states...
That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.

On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.
2) The collapse of the building occurred in the same fashion that one does when being demolished by explosives which have to be set up in a very specific fashion to make the building implode and not do collateral damage. To which the engineer states...
Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.
It would seem to me that it should be quiet easy for someone to claim that money. Just like Randi's money I doubt anyone will ever claim this money.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
TheStatutoryApe said:
[from the link] Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.
This is something that they say a lot on tv where they show demolitions and I also bought it until I started taking engineerning. It really should be obvious though, that it can only fall straight down - and the taller and skinnier it is, the straighter it falls.
 
  • #20
An article against what the government is saying. And ads and weird stuff also. http://www.the7thfire.com/jet-fuel-WTC.htm

And you might think I would say you are very bad arrogant and ignorant people like the girl screaming outside my house. What in the world. Anyway, bravo and kudos to you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
from the link
"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

The WTC towers were not typical, steel frame buildings. The exoskeletal design of the towers makes this an entirely different case.

Anyway, more info:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
 
  • #22
The structural integrity is just steel. If the kerosene is far from softening it and the buildings could stand for so long after the fire burned out, what does fire have to do with it? Reminds me, a fun flash on the pentagon "attack" http://www.muchosucko.com/viewlink4276.html
 
  • #23
Esperanto said:
An article against what the government is saying. And ads and weird stuff also. http://www.the7thfire.com/jet-fuel-WTC.htm
That link is crap - impressive crap, but crap nonetheless. It has a pretty basic flaw: it operates on the assumption that every ounce of material gets heated by exactly the same amount.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
russ_watters said:
That link is crap - impressive crap, but crap nonetheless. It has a pretty basic flaw: it operates on the assumption that every ounce of material gets heated by exactly the same amount.
Very true. That was one of the main points of the engineer in that article. Uneven heating of the beams would weaken the beams more so than even heating due to permanent distortion. Also there was the factor of the angle clips that weren't up to safety standards individually but were let slide due to the shear number of them being employed. It wasn't expected that they would have these substandard clips going out all over the entire floor.
 
  • #25
I saw an interview shortly (~ 6 months) after 9/11 with the chief designer of the WTC. He said the buildings had been designed to survive an impact by a 727 (biggest commercial plane of the day) that was at considerably under 1/2 tank of fuel. It would, they reasoned, be a plane that had come cross country/trans-Atlantic, was low on fuel, and searching for the airport (presumably in fog, snow, heavy rain, etc.) That's really all I need to convince me. A 747 is a much bigger aircraft, and had nearly full tanks. That the buildings held on as long as they did, given how far beyond the design criteria the actual crash was, in my opinion, a testament to over-engineering.

By the way, what was the point of this 'conspiracy?' I looked around on the website, and he didn't really tell *why* he thought there was a conspiracy. What did the 'conspirators' get out of it?
 
  • #26
Sniff, I thought the most important thing was that the fuel was nowhere near compromising the structure to justify that kind of collapse, especially since it wasn't burning when the wtc's went kaput. And if you can't even use your imagination to figure out what the conspirators get out of it... er, but whatever. I'll sing a song for you, I don't think trying to dicuss this is going to help anyone, so kudos to you. But what are your thoughts on the pentagon crash link I gave you?

This is the best I can do for you: a pink floyd song, transcribed by me.

Bike

I've got a bike. You can ride it if you like.
It's got a basket, a bell that rings, and things to make it look good.
I'd give it to you if I could, but I borrowed it.
You're the kind of girl that fits into my world.
I'll give you anything, everything if you want thing.

I've got a cloak. It's a bit of a joke.
There's a tear up the front. It's red and black. I've had it for months.
If you think it could look good, then I guess it should.
You're the kind of girl that fits into my world.
I'll give you anything, everything if you want thing.

I know a mouse, and he hasn't got a house.
I don't know why I call him Gerrald.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
You're the kind of girl that fits into my world.
I'll give you anything, everything if you want thing.

I've got a clan of gingerbread man.
Here a man, there a man, lots of gingerbread man.
Take a couple of you wish, they're on the dish.
You're the kind of girl that fits into my world.
I'll give you anything, everything if you want thing.

I know a room of musical tunes.
Some rhyme, some ching, most of them are clockwork.
Let's go into the other room, and make them work.
 
  • #27
Still No Takers?

C'mon guys, all you have to do is 'prove' the case provided by the government. I betch'ya if it was for a million dollars there would be more takers!
 
  • #28
This guy is only a middling millionnaire (worth ~$11m) as far as the "really, really rich" go.

Offering 100 % conclusive proof would be worth more than a 100 grand, it would be worth more than ten million even. Because real proof depends on more than models, knock-ups, computer sims and "expert" testimony and affidavits.

Real proof would involve purchasing a large piece of remote land, and constructing an exact replica of the towers down to the last engineering detail in the blueprints. Then remotely flying two unmanned commercial airliners carrying the same fuel load and weighted with the same mass distribution to correspond to the seated passengers into the buildings in a very similar fashion to the way it happened on 9/11. The second impact has a good video record to recreate it, but I dare say there are reliable eyewitness accounts and good forensic evidence to recreate the exact trajectory and impact of the first flight as well.

Doing *that* is going to require a budget running into the hundreds of millions. My idea is just too expensive for middling millionaires with chips on their shoulder like this Walters fellow. My guess is that Walters knows incontrovertible proof like this is going to be far out of the reach of the casual applicants so his money is safe.
 
  • #29
"...especially since it wasn't burning when the wtc's went kaput"

It wasn't burning? Hello? Where did that piece of 'fact' come from? Just out of common sense, how could you expect a building to not catch on fire after that happening? Even if it was a Cessna, there would have been a fire.

Conspirators can say what they want. I'll stick with the people that are actually able to do real work on the subject:

NIST web site: http://wtc.nist.gov/
 
  • #30
The buildings did catch on fire, but it was quite contained when they collapsed. And fire tends to go up, if it didn't die after so long I don't see what the fire could do. Did you read the articles we linked?

You should read how little work is being done on the subject by those you blindly trust http://www.rense.com/general18/collapse.htm

hmm lessee, what I don't like about NIST is that they have already decided what caused the collapses. They state quite clearly in their goals that they just want to make revisions to building and fire codes.

http://reopen911.org/index.htm

look at the first two pictures on the left side of that main page.

Yowza, you guys are starting to make my eyes water.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Offers $100,000 Prize For Proof Of Official Theory.
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Was 9/11 a controlled demolition?
  • · Replies 68 ·
3
Replies
68
Views
48K