Demolition Access To The WTC Towers - Kevin Ryan

[Peter Lemkin]

[Lauren Johnson]

Here is his next video:



His agenda in this high quality video is not clear. He uses the word "fraud" but does not say who is doing the defrauding and why.

[Lauren Johnson]

Our old friend JSanderO aka Jeffrey Orling is now helping with this new angle.

Edit: Corrections to be made! Thanks to JSanderO from JREF. I am wrong, wrong, wrong about the thickness of the steel at the impact zone. It wasn't a quarter inch thick, it was a half inch thick. Damn, I hate when I do that but boy if that doesn't make the plane hugger position even more untenable.

http://yankee451.com/2014/01/07/cut-plan...omment-341

[Peter Lemkin]

Thursday, September 5, 2013

9/11: How it Was Done, the Science of Demolition

#howtheydid911

As public awareness grows about the truth about 9/11, it serves to point out that many features of the towers' destruction fit perfectly with standard patterns of demolition. Evidence which at first seems puzzling is in fact consistent with known demolition techniques.

WTC 7 differed from Towers One and Two in that WTC7 was a traditional "bottom-up" implosion. The Twin Towers, on the other hand, exhibited the more unfamiliar pattern of a "banana peel" demolition, which starts at the middle or the top of a building and progresses downward. The below demolition in China shows the pattern of streamers of arcing debris that we see coming from the Twin Towers, as the cutting of supports begins high above ground level and works its way down.

Banana Peel Demolition in China next to Twin Towers

Banana peel demolitions are used for taller, narrower buildings, where there is danger of the building tipping over should the bottom be cut and the rest of the sequence not execute perfectly.

But first, just how does a demolition work? Students of the truth about 9/11 will not be surprised to learn that it essentially is the art and science of causing to happen what cannot happen without careful planning and engineering: all key structural supports in a building must be cut at essentially the same time, so that all pieces are falling at free-fall acceleration through thin air. In the below images we see the principle support columns in the "core," an extensively cross-braced steel assembly which served as the backbone of the towers, and held 70% of the weight.

Twin Tower core backbone under construction



Illustration of main support columns




One standard technique is the use of "cutter' and "kicker" charges, in which the first set of charges, the cutters, cut the steel beam supports at precisely timed intervals, and the kicker charge "kicks" the cut piece outward. In all the film evidence of the Towers' destruction, straight, cleanly cut pieces of steel beam can be seen spinning outward from the Towers at explosive speeds, across an area at least three times as long as the Towers are wide.

Cut Steel Being Hurled Laterally at Speeds up to 80 MPH

Photo: debris field width
- See more at: http://busharchives.org/#sthash.CHejJbvU.dpuf

Width of Debris Field

Photo: debris field width
- See more at: http://busharchives.org/#sthash.CHejJbvU.dpuf

Photo: debris field width
- See more at: http://busharchives.org/#sthash.CHejJbvU.dpuf

Physicist David Chandler Narrates North Tower Demolition

Using this technique, the pattern of debris one would expect to see lying on the ground after the destruction would be cleanly-cut, straight steel pieces, rather than twisted, heat deformed pretzels of steel as implied by the official "steel got soft and buckled" story. Exactly as predicted, an aerial photo of the debris field shows a thick carpet of arrow-straight, cleanly-cut lengths of steel beam, flung hither and yon.

Aerial View, Steel Debris, from BushArchives.org






Aerial Veiw, Steel Debris, from BushArchives.org

Use of Thermite

In its famous attack on skeptics of the official 9/11 story, Popular Mechanics held that the melting agent thermite had never been used in a demolition before. Ironically it had, on the Chicago Sky Ride in 1935. It was reported in Popular Mechanics.

Thermite works by melting through steel like a hot knife through butter, illustrated in the video below.

Thermite vs. Car

Reaching temperatures of 5,000F, thermite can be expected to produce large pools of molten steel and iron. This is exactly what was found, to the puzzlement of rescue workers, in the basements of the Twin Towers.

Relatively slow burning thermite would have been used to weaken strong points in the structures, such as mechanical floors, prior to demolition. So it is of interest that in WTC 2, molten steel seen dripping at around floors 80 and 81 corresponded somewhat, but not exactly, to the mechanical floors at floors 75-77, below.

WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner

In the following video demonstrating the use of thermite, the characteristic dripping of molten steel can be seen which exactly replicates, in color and consistency, that seen coming from the towers on a larger scale.

Thermite vs. Steel Plate

Another interesting use of thermite can be seen the moment just before each demolition when the perimeter columns around the impact areas seem to bow outward, giving the impression of overload. Thermite melting the core columns so that all load is transferred to the perimeter columns would give precisely this effect.

Molten iron and steel was not observed dripping from the building until about ten minutes before destruction. This would be when firefighters were reporting that the fires were under control and almost out.

One thing which stands out about the presence of molten steel in the basements is that it stayed molten for so long, reported for weeks and even months afterwards. This would require a powerful exothermic reaction, hot enough not just to melt steel, but to raise its temperature considerably above melting point in order for heat to be stored, in the same way that water brought to near boiling cools down into the solid state of ice far more slowly than water at room temperature. With the melting point of steel at 2800F, and the thermite reaction reaching temperatures of 5,000F, the reaction would produce enough heat-energy to keep steel molten - i.e. in liquid state - for long periods of time.

Thus the evidence again fits what we would expect to find in a demolition that was a combination of thermite, and cutter and kicker charges.

An example of the use of linear-shape charges, i.e. cutter charges, is below, along with a manufacturer's catalog image.

Use of Shape Charges in Demolitions



Linear Shape Charges

A video simulation of the Towers' inner structure posted at Youtube includes an illustration of a cutter-kicker sequence.

Click on images to go to Youtube video, sequence begins at 7:20
1.



2.

Demolitions Expert Tom Sullivan

A demolitions expert formerly with Controlled Demolitions Inc. (CDI,) which was contracted to help with the clean-up phase at Ground Zero, said in an interview:

"Fire cannot bring down steel-framed high rises period."

Tom Sullivan grew up with the son of Jack Loizeaux, president and founder of CDI,and a pioneer in the controlled demolitions industry. In an interview with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Sullivan stated:

"that he knew from the first day that the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 was a classic controlled implosion. Asked how he thought it might have been done he posited, "looking at the building it wouldn't be a problem once you gain access to the elevator shafts…then a team of expert loaders would have hidden access to the core columns and beams. The rest can be accomplished with just the right kind of explosives for the job. Thermite can be used as well."

Sullivan said:

"I mean, come on, it was complete destruction. I've seen buildings fall like that for years -- that was the end game for me."

The means of igniting and controlling the demolition suggested by Sullivan, interestingly, coincides with the one proposed in an early hypothetical blasting scenario by Jim Hoffman, an artificial intelligence engineer. In the section "Control Architecture" of the scenario Hoffman posits:

Control Architecture

Ignition of the incendiariesand detonation of the explosivesis controlled through a wireless network using RF repeaters on every floor of the Towers having pyrotechnics.

Each of the Stage-2 pyrotechnics units-- the kicker charges and explosive sheets --has an integrated wireless detonator cardthat includes a 2-channel RF receiver, an accelerometer,logic, dual wafer batteries, and a micro-detonator...

The detonator cards are programmed to respond only to RF signalson the network's broadcast frequencies that have specific codes.The cards are manufactured in batches of cards with identical codes,where each batch has a unique code and is destined for a specific floorof one of the Towers.

Of a detonator card's two channels,one provides the arm signal,and the other provides a detonation signal.Once the arm signal has been received,the detonator will be triggered by either of two events:rapid acceleration detected by the accelerometer,or receipt of the detonation signal.

Below is an image of this kind of system currently on the market for CD companies, published at ae911truth.org (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.)

Wireless Detonation System

" width="640" />[/align]



Conclusion

Once 24/7 access to the towers' interiors and the rest of the WTC complex has been established, the planned destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 becomes a task for which all technology is well-developed and available. Access is established through Marvin Bush, the youngest Bush brother, who was on the board of Securacom, the company which held the security contract for the World Trade Center complex. According to Barry McDaniel, CEO of Securacom, the company held the contract for security "up to the day the buildings fell down."

The nexus which seems to connect many of key players in the 9/11 plot is the neoconservative think-tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC.) PNAC, whose members included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Zalmay Khalilzad, Scooter Libby, and Richard Armitage, had been openly advocating for an invasion of Iraq since the Clinton administration.

Dov Zakheim, another member of PNAC, had been awarded the contract for the first WTC bombing investigation in 1993. The investigation was done by a fully-owned subsidiary of Zakheim's company SPC, Tridata. The contract assured that not only access to the towers was secured, but also floor plans, blueprints, and all other intimate technical knowledge of the buildings.

Zakeim, who was appointed Comptroller of the Pentagon by Bush upon taking office, was also in charge of the Pentagon's finances at the time $2.3 trillion was announced missing from the Pentagon, on September 10 the day before 9/11. Needless to say, after 9/11 "the day the world changed," the story was dropped from the media.

In another coincidence involving Zakheim, his company SPC (of which he was CEO and main shareholder) also invented remote 'anti-hijack" technology, by which an airliner's controls could be seized from the ground to foil hijackers. This technology has obvious ramifications for misuse in the wrong hands.

In a city like New York, the world's most dynamic metropolis, the "city that never sleeps," extra work crews, maintenance crews, technicians, and delivery trucks working round-the-clock would not be noticed. Nevertheless, some people did notice certain unusual events, such as a series of "power downs" and a generally unusual amount of activity in the months before 9/11. In the below video a worker describes a "power down" condition days before 9/11, which would have disabled security cameras and alarms.

Worker Describes "Power Down" Days Before 9/11

One favorite contention of defenders of the official story is that the aircraft impacts would have set-off or destroyed explosive charges. But the loss of a number of charges would be of no consequence in a redundantly "wired" impact zone, since only specific encoded signals could actually arm and trigger the entire detonation sequence.

As Col. Bob Bowman once said: "If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?" The immediate, illegal destruction of 99.5% of the steel evidence, shipped to and melted in China, ensures that the vast majority of the steel can never be examined and tested to either confirm or disprove the presence of the above demolition techniques. This alone, said Bowman, is evidence of guilt.

Some kinds of thermite can be applied in a "sol-gel" solution, which can be rolled on like paint, or fireproofing. Think how inconvenient, then, to have steel beams examined and found to have layers of residual thermite paint. It is no wonder that putting the steel onto ships bound for China, immediately, was of the utmost importance, even if it represented felony destruction of evidence.

In the end the testimony of firefighters and other responders, like Firefighter John Schroeder below, stands as the most powerful indicator of what happened that day. Schroeder, who says he does not believe the official story, and who was on the 24th floor of the North Tower, reports explosions rocking the building from the inside, as it seemed to "disintegrate" from the core and the stairwells. This is precisely the part of the structure which would be most critical to weaken before a final demolition sequence.

Firefighter John Schroeder

There is no shortage of testimony corroborating Schroeder's description of explosions throughout the morning, which might correspond to the preliminary weakening of the buildings' strong points. Not one of these reports of explosions was included in the official 9/11 Commission report.

One such explosion is captured on video below.

Explosion

The audio evidence includes footage of what is clearly an accelerating demolition sequence, below.

Explosive Sequence, South Tower

Other anomalies and coincidences in the evidence of 9/11 continue to arise, and together with the above demolition hypothesis continue to provide clues as to just how it was done.

[Peter Lemkin]

[TABLE="class: contentpaneopen"]
[TR]
[TD="class: contentheading"]Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11[/TD]
[TD="class: buttonheading, width: 100%, align: right"] [/TD]
[TD="class: buttonheading, width: 100%, align: right"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: contentpaneopen"]
[TR]
[TD]Written by David Chandler [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: createdate"]Wednesday, 16 April 2014 17:15 [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]


Physics Teacher David Chandler Introduction to David Chandler's "Freefall and Building 7" by Mike Cook
With his background as a teacher of physics, David Chandler has made invaluable contributions to the quest for 9/11 truth and justice, helping to make technical aspects of the controlled demolition of all three World Trade Center buildings more accessible to lay persons. In this article, he covers one of the more crushing pieces of evidence that disproves the official account, the freefall of Building 7.

Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11

Galileo was the first to describe the amazing fact that, apart from air resistance, all objects fall at the same "rate." If you have not experienced this fact directly, try dropping a large rock and a pebble side by-side. The rate we are referring to is not a "speed," because for a falling object the speed is constantly changing. The rate we are talking about is actually the "rate of increase of speed," how quickly the speed builds up, called acceleration. The acceleration achieved by all falling bodies, apart from air resistance, is called the "acceleration of gravity."
Gravity causes freely falling objects to increase their speed by about 32 ft/s per second. (The awkward unit, feet per second per second is commonly abbreviated ft/s2.) When an object is dropped, the speed is initially zero, but it immediately starts speeding up. After 1 second its speed will be 32 ft/s. After 2 seconds its speed will be 64 ft/s. Etc. 32 ft/s2 is an approximation. The "acceleration of gravity" actually varies slightly from place to place. In New York City it is 32.159 ft/s2.
Isaac Newton showed that the acceleration of an object is governed by its mass and the net force acting on it. (If several forces are acting at once they are combined to give a "net" force.) If the downward acceleration of a falling object equals the acceleration of gravity, then the net force is the gravitational force alone; any other forces must add up to zero.

What if a heavy object falls through other objects, breaking them as it goes? Newton's third law says that when objects interact, they always exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Therefore, while an object is falling, if it exerts any force on objects in its path, those objects must push back, slowing the fall. If an object is observed to be in freefall, we can conclude that nothing in the path exerts a force to slow it down, and by Newton's third law, the falling object cannot be pushing on anything else either.
Freefall of WTC 7
When the top section of a building collapses one would expect the falling section to crash into the lower section and exert a large force on it, like dropping an anvil on your toe. A typical controlled demolition exploits this fact: the crushing force of the falling section of the building contributes to the demolition, and reduces the amount of explosives that are needed. However, amazingly, this is not what happened when Building 7 "collapsed" on 9/11.
We know that the falling section of Building 7 did not crush the lower section of the building because the top section of Building 7 fell at freefall. It didn't just fall at something close to freefall. It fell for about 2.5 seconds at a rate that was indistinguishable from freefall. If the falling section of the building had crushed the lower section, the lower section would have pushed back with an equal but opposite force. But that would have slowed the fall. Since the fall was not slowed in the slightest, we can conclude that the force of interaction was zero... in both directions.
How can this be?
There were explosions in Building 7 heard by many witnesses throughout the day. One such explosion is recorded in a video clip where several fire fighters are gathered around a pay phone calling home to assure their families they are alright. Suddenly they are startled by a very loud, unmistakable explosion. This is one of the Building 7 explosions that occurred long before it fell.
Shortly before the ultimate collapse of the building the east penthouse and the columns beneath it suddenly gave way. NIST (the government agency assigned to investigate the building collapses) attributes the collapse of the east penthouse to the failure of a single column, in a complex scenario involving thermal expansion of beams supporting the column. But it is much more likely that at least two and possibly three supporting columns were "taken out" simultaneously. Three columns supported the east penthouse. One of our German colleagues has pointed to evidence that the east penthouse fell through the interior of the building at close to freefall, evidenced by a ripple of reflections in the windows as it fell. Yet the exterior of the building retained its integrity.
NIST claims that the collapse of their one key column led to a progressive collapse of the entire interior of the building leaving only a hollow shell. The collapse of the building, seen in numerous videos, is described by NIST as the collapse of the "facade," the hollow shell. They have no evidence for this scenario, however, and a great deal of evidence contradicts it. After the collapse of the east penthouse there is no visible distortion of the walls and only a few windows are broken at this time. Had the failure of interior columns propagated throughout the interior of the building, as asserted by NIST, it would surely have propagated to the much closer exterior walls and distorted or collapsed them. (Major crumpling of the exterior walls, by the way, is exactly what is shown in the animations produced by NIST's computer simulation of the collapse.) But the actual videos of the building show that the exterior remained rigid during this early period. At the onset of collapse you can see in the videos that the building suddenly goes limp, like a dying person giving up the ghost. The limpness of the freefalling structure highlights by contrast the earlier rigidity.
Furthermore, there are huge pyroclastic flows of dust, resembling a volcanic eruption, that poured into the streets following the final collapse of the building. If what we saw was only the collapse of the facade, why was the pyroclastic flow not triggered earlier when NIST claims the collapse of the much more voluminous interior occurred? And why did the west penthouse remain to fall with the visible exterior of the building? Its supporting structure clearly remained to the very end and was "taken out" along with the rest of the building support all at once. NIST is scrambling to find a plausible scenario that will allow it to escape the consequences of what is plainly visible. (If you have not seen the collapse of Building 7, find it on YouTube and watch for yourself. For most people simply watching it collapse is all it takes. Most people are not stupid. Most people can recognize the difference between a demolition and a natural building collapse with nothing more being said. If you have never seen the collapse of Building 7 you might also stop and ask yourself why the mainstream media did not repeatedly show you this most bizarre event as it did the Twin Towers.)
Velocity vs Time for NW Corner of WTC 7
After the east penthouse collapsed, several seconds elapsed, then the west penthouse began to collapse, at nearly the same time the roofline of the building developed a kink near the center, then all support across the entire width of the building was suddenly removed, a vertical swath of windows under the west penthouse were simultaneously blown out, the building suddenly went limp, and (within a fraction of a second) it transitioned from full support to freefall. I am not using the term "freefall" loosely here. I used a video analysis tool to carefully measure the velocity profile of the falling building using CBS video footage from a fixed camera aimed almost squarely at the north wall. A video detailing this measurement is available at YouTube/user/ae911truth. I calibrated my measurements with the heights of two points in the building provided in the NIST Building 7 report released in August 2008, so I know the picture scale is good. My measurements indicate that with sudden onset the building underwent approximately 2.5 seconds of literal freefall. This is equivalent to approximately 8 stories of fall in which the falling section of the building encountered zero resistance. For an additional 8 stories it encountered minimal resistance, during which it continued to accelerate, but at a rate less than freefall. Only beyond those 16 stories of drop did the falling section of the building interact significantly with the underlying structure and decelerate.
Freefall is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building. In a natural collapse there would be an interaction between the falling and the stationary sections of the building. This interaction would cause crushing of both sections and slowing of the falling section. I have done measurements on several known demolitions, using similar software tools, and found that they typically fall with accelerations considerably less than freefall. Building 7 was not only demolished, it was demolished with tremendous overkill. Freefall was so embarrassing to NIST that in the August 2008 draft release for public comment of their final report, the fact of freefall was denied and crudely covered up with the assertion that the collapse took 40% longer than "freefall time." They asserted that the actual collapse, down to the level of the 29th floor, took 5.4 seconds whereas freefall would have taken only 3.9 seconds. They arrived at their figures with only two data points: the time when the roofline reached the level of the 29th floor and an artificially early start time several seconds prior to the beginning of the obvious, sudden onset of freefall. They started their clock at a time between the collapses of the east and west penthouses when the building was not moving. They claimed they saw a change in a "single pixel" triggering what they asserted was the onset of collapse, but anyone who has worked with the actual videos will recognize that the edge artifacts in the image of the building make this an unrealistic standard. Furthermore, even if there was a tiny motion of the building at that point, it continued to stand essentially motionless for several more seconds before the dramatic onset of freefall collapse. The fact of a cover up in NIST's measurement is underlined in that the formula they point to as the basis for their calculation of "freefall time" is valid only under conditions of constant acceleration. They applied that equation to a situation that was far from uniform acceleration. Instead, the building remained essentially at rest for several seconds, then plunged into freefall, then slowed to a lesser acceleration. Their analysis demonstrates either gross incompetence or a crude attempt at a cover up. The scientists at NIST are clearly not incompetent, so the only reasonable conclusion is to interpret this as part of a cover up. (It is important to stand back occasionally and recognize the context of these events. This was not just a cover-up of an embarrassing fact. It was a cover-up of facts in the murder of nearly 3000 people and part of a justification for a war in which well over a million people have since been killed.)
I had an opportunity to confront NIST about the easily demonstrated fact of freefall at the technical briefing on August 26, 2008. I and several other scientists and engineers also filed official "requests for correction" in the days that followed. When they released their final report in November 2008, much to the surprise of the 9/11 Truth community, they had revised their measurements of the collapse of the building, including an admission of 2.25 seconds of absolute freefall. However, they couched the period of freefall in a framework of a supposed "three phase collapse sequence" that still occupies exactly 5.4 seconds.
The recurrence of 5.4 seconds, even in a completely revised analysis, is very puzzling until you realize its context. NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told the audience in the August 26, 2008 Technical Briefing that their computerized collapse model had predicted the collapse down to the 29th floor level would take 5.4 seconds, well beyond the 3.9 seconds required for freefall. From the events at the Technical Briefing it appears that a team headed by structural engineer John Gross dutifully fabricated a 5.4 second observation to exactly match the prediction. Anyone with any experience in laboratory measurement would have expected some amount of uncertainty between the prediction and the measurement. They would have been doing extremely well to come up with a computer model that would predict the collapse time within 10%. But no...their measurement exactly matched the prediction to the tenth of a second. Keep in mind that their computer model was constructed in the absence of the actual steel, which had long since been hauled away and destroyed. According to NIST's records, none of the steel from Building 7 remains. (Pause and ponder that fact for a moment. Anyone who has watched CSI knows the importance of preserving the physical evidence in a crime scene. Destroying a crime scene is in itself a crime, yet that is exactly what happened in the aftermath of 9/11, and it happened over the loud protests of the firefighters and others who had a stake in really finding out the truth.) Back to our story. NIST's computer model predicted 5.4 seconds for the building to collapse down to the level of the 29th floor. John Gross and his team found the time the roofline reached the 29th floor, then picked a start time exactly 5.4 seconds earlier to give a measurement that matched the model to the nearest tenth of a second. They took their start time several seconds prior to the actual start of freefall when nothing was happening. The building was just sitting there, with the clock running, for several seconds. Then it dropped, with sudden onset, and continued for 2.5 seconds of absolute freefall.
So, NIST now acknowledges that freefall did occur. How do they explain that? They don't. They simply state, without elaboration, that their three-phase collapse analysis is consistent with their fire induced collapse hypothesis. The only thing about the three-phase analysis that is consistent with their collapse hypothesis is the 5.4 second total duration, measuring from their artificially chosen starting time. In other words, they make no attempt to explain the 2.25 second period of freefall. They just walked away from it without further comment.
The fact remains that freefall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the underlying structure that would have slowed the fall. Given that even known controlled demolitions do not remove sufficient structure to allow for actual freefall, how could a natural fire-induced process be more destructive? Add to that the synchronicity of the removal of support across the whole width of the building, evidenced by the levelness of the roofline as it came down, and the suddenness of onset of collapse, and the immediate transition from full support to total freefall. Natural collapse resulting in freefall is simply not plausible. It did not happen. It could not happen. Yet freefall did in fact happen. This means it was not a natural collapse. Forces other than the falling upper section of the building suddenly destroyed and removed the supporting columns for at least eight stories across the entire length and width of the building.
The freefall of Building 7 is one of the clearest of many "smoking guns" that proves explosives were planted in the World Trade Center buildings prior to 9/11, 2001.
----------------
David Chandler received a BS degree in a hybrid physics and engineering program at Harvey Mudd College, Claremont CA and a MS degree in mathematics from Cal Poly University, Pomona CA. He has taught physics, mathematics, and astronomy since 1972 at both the high school and college levels. He is active with the video and writing teams of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. His 9/11- related videos are featured on AE911Truth.org and YouTube.com/user/ae911truth. His own 9/11- related web site is 911SpeakOut.org.

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[Lauren Johnson]

LHO had to die.

WTC 1,2, and 3 had to come down.

[Drew Phipps]

Here is his next video

His agenda in this high quality video is not clear. He uses the word "fraud" but does not say who is doing the defrauding and why.

His agenda appears to be to generate support for a crowdsource funded crash test. His website is called 911crashtest.org. It certainly looks like a worthwhile effort to me, no matter what the results are, at least we'll know something more than we know now. (I am not affiliated in any way with this project.) I won't donate money for the test, but you might guess that a university or think tank might. It seems to me that the first step would be to model the experiment on a computer (without the necessity for the massive funding of performing the experiment) and after that try to raise funds for the actual experiment.

[Lauren Johnson]

Here is his next video

His agenda in this high quality video is not clear. He uses the word "fraud" but does not say who is doing the defrauding and why.

His agenda appears to be to generate support for a crowdsource funded crash test. His website is called 911crashtest.org. It certainly looks like a worthwhile effort to me, no matter what the results are, at least we'll know something more than we know now. (I am not affiliated in any way with this project.) I won't donate money for the test, but you might guess that a university or think tank might. It seems to me that the first step would be to model the experiment on a computer (without the necessity for the massive funding of performing the experiment) and after that try to raise funds for the actual experiment.

Hi Drew,

Yes, indeed, that is his stated agenda. Another stated agenda is to make the case for corruption in the building of the twin towers. Then another agenda is to disagree with all of the explanations for the collapse of the twin towers. He is now at the point where, three months ago, he was going to provide us with the real reason what caused the towers to collapse.

So let's say there is this test that he is proposing and it really is a accurate test, and the test airplane does not crash through vertical columns and spandrels lattice, where are we left. Nowhere. And that is to me the point. The structure of his case casts doubt on every explanation including the so-called "truthers."

And that is the point. The best disinformation campaigns just cast doubt; that's all they have to do. This campaign has the same structure. Maybe he can make a case, but so far I question his very motives. BTW, I IM'd Tony Szamboti about this and he is in full agreement.

[Drew Phipps]

He did express frustration with the 911 Truth movement. I am far more interested in the possibility that the outer columns and lattice do tend to shred the plane; what then is left to collide with and "remove" the fire protection on the steel load bearing inner core columns. I'd also guess that casting doubt on everything would tend to work more against the official explanation than any alternate, but possibly the subtleties are escaping me.

[Peter Lemkin]

He did express frustration with the 911 Truth movement. I am far more interested in the possibility that the outer columns and lattice do tend to shred the plane; what then is left to collide with and "remove" the fire protection on the steel load bearing inner core columns. I'd also guess that casting doubt on everything would tend to work more against the official explanation than any alternate, but possibly the subtleties are escaping me.

Posted elsewhere here on this Forum [and you can find it on the internet] is convincing evidence [to me] that the planes nor fires took of much of the fireproofing - and even IF it did, was NOT ever enough to bring down the building - the buildings, after being hit by computer-guided planes were brought down in true Hollywood style / DoD style Shock and Awe controlled demolition - computer timed detonations of nanothermite charges preplanted in the months before.