The definition of Sophistry is

1) a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning

2) a false argument.

Implosion World wrote:

"through the examination of known facts as they relate to scientific principals of gravity, explosives, and structural failure." 

They provided no scientific data at all - none in the report - not one shred of math - not one reference! Harldy scientific!

Implosion World is a magazine for professionals. Yet they claim they simplified for the layman. Why? You would expect professionals to write for professionals.

They have refused to comply with my request of the scientific backup of their article. They made a claim that they would have to spend $200,000 to enter the contest. They have refused to supply the detail on that claim.

What was provided was a false dilemma, innuendo and straw man arguments:

"a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and the 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires or

"b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected by throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the building with boxes of explosives"

NO ONE except Implosion World has proposed scenario b - that is straw man sophistry!

As for a) they go on "the chemical properties of explosives and their reactions to heat render scenario A scientifically impossible"

They offer no proof of any of this. These are merely assertions which a real examination of the facts show false.

Below you will find a picture of the woman standing in the hole at the WTC. Where are the raging 1100+ degree fires? The smoke is black indicating small, low temperature fires, a scientific fact. You can see no flames at all behind the woman nor at the edges of the building. Yet Implosion World puts forth false claims that there are 1100+ degree fires. If a human can survive the alleged initial impact and subsequent fires, explosives can survive. (see our bluescreen page to see that we contend that the videos were faked and the holes made with some other technology) Modern military munitions survive impacts and fires near them. Since the whole disaster was planned, they would have insulated and protected the charges.

Implosion World has used "a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning"

Here are the emails where they insult Mr Walter, Mr Walter agrees to their demands, and then they stop corresponding to him.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jimmy Walter" <>
To: <>; "Jim Fetzer" <>; "Prof
Steven Jones" <>; "Morgan Reynolds"
<>; "Nico Haupt" <>; "Rosalee"
<>; "Gerard Holmgren" <>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 3:22 AM
Subject: Your absurd report

>I suggest you enter my $1,000,000 challenge if you are so sure.
> Your report is absurd. Other than waving your credentials and making
> absurd assumptions (such as 1100+ F fires, which the picture clearly
> did not occur) you offer no scientific or engineering analysis of how
> building collapsed.
> My $1,000,000 is waiting. Why have you not entered the contest with a
> scientific analysis rather than you sophistry?
> wrote: You are clearly unable to grasp concepts beyond a basic level and as such this will be our last email to you.  You have no idea of the amount of research and work - lasting more than a year - we have conducted to back up our comments.  What I wrote to you below was that we did not include the technical minutae in the report we released.  Trust me you are not the first to write us that "our report is worthless".  The first came about 5 minutes after we posted it.  So take a number.   We sometimes use sarcasm to address the absolute ludicrous-ness of some of the claims and statements we receive.  It's amazing that you still have not read the intent of our report.  Please, the next time you write, tell us you have $1 million in escrow so that anyone has a chance to actually collect it.  Otherwise unfortunately you're just another knucklehead making crazy unfounded statements.   It's simple:  If you assert explosives were placed on every floor - or anything else - be prepared to offer real evidence.  We will review anything you send as time allows us to.   Thank you--     PS- escrow, escrow.....  

Hi Jimmy, thanks for your note.  We value all feedback.

If you noticed, our report made extra mention that we were using simple
words to explain a complex topic to a wide cross-section of people.  But
seems we must use smaller words, so here goes:

We - did - not - write - the - report - for - money.
We - never - intended - for - the - report - to - address - technical -
minutia - however - we - can - if - neccesary.
I - know - you - will - never - believe - us - but - it's - okay.

Interesting your writing us now... why not when we reached out to you
several times with questions last January?  Two of our researchers wanted
take your challenge, but I told them they must do it on their own time.
Then the point became moot when you did not respond.

As I generally remember their questions:

1. Please describe what specific oversight or independent review you have
place should your scholars "interpret" data in a manner inconsistent with
established scientific principles or guidelines, and explain the entire
appeal process.

2. We believe the goal of proving the buildings fell solely via the planes
is very attainable, but performing the many types of detailed research and
compilations required in your rules would take time and money.  I think
estimate was about $200,000.00, which is still cost effective to win a
million.  However my researchers' concern is that after all the work you
simply don't pay because you don't personally like or agree with the
you get, or suddenly your website disappears or goes "bankrupt".  So would
you be willing to transfer the money into an escrow account (or is it
already there), and what guidelines would we use to select an independent
arbitor or manager of the account?

Without these common, mutually-protective measures being accepted and
implemented, your "contest" sounds risky and hollow.

Brent Blanchard

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Date: From: To: References:
Re2: Your absurd report
Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:27:20 +0200
Jimmy Walter <> <>
<> <04d201c6c5ec$ae5e30c0$0202a8c0@BrentsLaptop>

Your assertion that it will cost 200,000 is based on paying who, the entrants? I will be happy to assemble a neutral panel, to be mutually agreed upon, to judge their entry. I realize that you will contend that Scholars for truth are not neutral. But I assure of one thing, I am honest. if anyone is able to prove all the points in my contest rules, I will pay the money. I cannot wait to see how you prove that a collapse caused steel beams to fly upwards and out over 100 meters with a stream of ionizing steel behind them.

Fine, I have offered to come up with an independent panel of judges and post a bond. You have refused to enter the challenge. Your insults show the shallowness of your intellect. I made no insults to you. If you have the backup for your assertions already done, then post it! As it stands, you have only assertions, credential waving, and absurd assertions (1100F fires when there is a woman who walked through them????)

Jimmy, your introductory email titled "Your Report is Absurd" is not insulting?  And then admonish us for not proving a negative to your personal satisfaction?  C'mon...    My apologies if you feel we insulted you, but we honestly don't have time to banty about with everyone who writes.  We received over a dozen emails this morning alone, and you're the only one I personally responded to.  Everyone thinks they're the most important!!   Again if you feel you have real evidence of explosives use please send it over.  And posting a bond is different from putting $$ in escrow to ensure a fair business transaction. `

Thanks, Brent

To say something is absurd is not insulting. Plenty of smart people say absurd things from time to time. I never said you were an idiot or that you could not understand complex concepts. I attacked your report, not you. You attacked me personally. There is a huge difference! No on is infallible.
You insult me personally, something I have not and will not do to you.

I already agreed to escrow.

And please send the the details of your $200,000 estimate for costs!!!

I have on my site many details, in the contest, that show that explosives were used. They make up the numerous points that must be disproved.


Whatever, Jimmy..."your sophistry" is insulting to me personally, period.  Look it up.  We both popped off a bit on a hectic day and it's good to calm down.   We performed our study with an open mind.  Our calculations are based on known scientific principles.  We did not ask contractors or rescue workers leading questions, we simply asked, "What do you honestly think?".  And we asked it dozens of times to people who worked down in the trenches since day one with no possibility of collusion.  They still don't know who else we've spoken to, and they don't care!  You know what?  Every one of them said basically the same thing, based solely on what they witnessed, touched and experienced on site, which has enormous value whether "scholars" think so or not.  If we weren't completely sure ALL of our research was sound, we wouldn't have published it.  Otherwise why the hell would I want to get involved in this rats-nest of an unproductive subject?  It's also important to note that since publication we've received emails from many demolition organizations voicing appreciation and complete agreement with our findings, while receiving zero in dissent.   The fact is we didn't write it to convince you, we wrote it for the benefit of anyone with an open mind, who has not sided one way or another using faulty claims or evidence.  You and I will never agree unless real evidence somehow surfaces to tangibly affect (while still explaining) all of the evidence that exists now, or unless you someday realize that conjecture, innuendo, and hypothetical variables are not evidence.  The rest is just noise, and I'm not going to try to convince you's simply a waste of our collective time.  And feel free to forward this to the scholars as you see fit.   I'll ask the guys if they want to pursue your $$ offer, however when last we spoke they were still very concerned about it's legitimacy.  And no, before you insinuate, their lack of pursuit of your contest doesn't validate the use of explosives, it only validates they may have better things to do with their time.  

Regards, Brent 

I guess that $1,000,000 is not a good use of their time


Now They answer my emails with the standard bull

Thank you for visiting and writing us at   The attacks of 9/11 continue to evoke deep emotions with many people, and we appreciate the overwhelming feedback received in relation to our recent report.  It is flattering and humbling to receive hundreds of positive responses to any literary endeavor, much less one of such importance.  Please know that we read every email, and wish we could staff enough people to personally respond to everyone!    If your inquiry involves a request to publish or link to our copyrighted report, the answer is "yes", so long as you include the entire report (to ensure keeping comments in context).  Many professional organizations and educational institutions have already done so, and we encourage the promotion of accurate information at every opportunity.   To our friends who disagree with our analysis, we hear you too.  We understand and accept that there will always be a segment of people who are skeptical of things they don't fully understand or do not come with easy answers.  We also understand our report will probably not change your mind about an "explosive conspiracy", but respect your opinion nonetheless.  You are a vital part of what makes America great.   And finally:  Longtime visitors to implosionworld know how reticent we are to recommend outside websites, however we suggest you take a moment to visit  This portal offers a wide cross-section of well written, accurate information that relates directly to the subject of 9/11 conspiracy theories, many of which extend well beyond assertions of explosive demolition.   Thanks again for writing us, and keep "Questioning a responsible and factually accurate manner".

Best regards, The Implosionworld team