9/11 REDUX: “Truth” Goes Viral

Paul Salo, 9-11
Paul Salo  Photo credit: Paul Salo / YouTube

The entrepreneur who wants to “once and for all” settle the debate over how the towers fell on 9/11 is facing obstacles and skepticism from both sides.

In a video introducing his now-defunct 9/11 Redux campaign on the crowdfunding site Indiegogo, Paul Salo pledges to fly an empty, auto-piloted Boeing 767 filled with jet fuel into an abandoned building — to see if it will result in the building’s collapse.

Many skeptics of the official narrative for what transpired on 9/11 are wary of Salo’s capacity to prove anything, despite his stated intention to be as true as possible to the physics of the tragic incident.

One expert who asked not to be identified told WhoWhatWhy that “it’s completely unscientific and cannot support any theory at all no matter what happens.”

In response, Salo acknowledged that it would be impossible to recreate the exact circumstances of that day. But he said that calling his test worthless for that reason is a “knee-jerk response.”

WhoWhatWhy contacted Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a collection of arguably the most respected researchers in scientific opposition to the official story. They offered another alternative — computer modeling.

“Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth commends Paul Salo for his interest in getting to the bottom of the tragic events of September 11, 2001,” said Ted Walter, the group’s director of strategy and development.

“Of course, the experiment he wishes to undertake, which is to fly an airplane into an old high-rise building, will not yield meaningful results, because it will be a different structural system and because it is impossible to recreate precisely the conditions experienced on 9/11.”

Walter’s group is funding a computer-model study “to evaluate the possible causes of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse. “If done correctly,” he said, “computer modeling can recreate the World Trade Center Towers with great accuracy and allow for a range of scenarios to be simulated.”

Walter expressed regret that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which was tasked with investigating the WTC failures, “terminated its modeling at the moment the collapses initiated, thus neglecting to model the actual collapses.”

NIST’s Senior Communications Officer, Michael E. Newman told WhoWhatWhy that the organization “does not have any comment on the proposed experiment by Mr. Salo to recreate the collapses of World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 (the Twin Towers).”

Newman added that “the NIST WTC investigation team members feel that since our study of the WTC collapses ended in 2008, there has been no new evidence presented that would change our findings and conclusions, and therefore, nothing new that we can contribute to the discussion of alternative theories about the destruction of the Towers or WTC 7, the office building that fell later on the afternoon of 9/11.”

The Media Flips Out

.

Meanwhile, some elements in the media seemed determined to discredit Salo. Most of the online articles have been sloppy cut-and-paste jobs that blame director Michael Moore for creating 9/11 conspiracy theories by bringing up “alleged” ties between the Bush and the bin Laden families in his 2004 documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.

The reporting consistently refers to the “expat” Salo — who is currently living in Thailand — as a “conspiracy theorist,” even though he has actually expressed belief in the official story more than once.

Accusations of insensitivity are accompanied by photos of the Twin Towers ablaze, and terrified – sometimes bloodied – 9/11 witnesses running for their lives from giant clouds of smoke and debris, next to those of Salo’s smiling face. (Examples here, here and here.)

GQ at least took the time to write something original:

I mean the words ‘Fuck Off’ don’t begin to do it justice. It’s so on its face insane and insensitive and that’s not even addressing the fact that this dude wants to spend anywhere from $300,000 (which is the number he quotes in the video) to $1.5 Million (the number he asks for on the Indiegogo [sp], which I’m not linking to, because fuck him).

In which other circumstance would the reaction of the media to someone questioning the official line be so severe? Why would someone be condemned outright for even suggesting that more research may resolve doubts that many people have expressed about the events of 9/11? Even if one doesn’t believe that 9/11 was anything other than what we have been told, what, precisely is the harm in what he is trying to do?

Crowdfunding Campaign Gets Shut Down

.

A few days after the story broke, Indiegogo’s “Trust and Safety” team emailed Salo that his campaign had been removed: “Our Terms of Use states that campaigners may not use Indiegogo ‘to raise funds…to cause harm to people.’ While we recognize that you want to take precautions to ensure safety, the risk to life in this project is too great for us to allow.”

Salo called the cancellation “a huge black eye for Indiegogo.”

“They knew full well what the project was, as we were trending near the top of Reddit for several days and on every major media outlet,” he said. “And suddenly our original proposal broke the terms? When they approved it and we never changed it?”

However, an Indiegogo representative told WhoWhatWhy that Indiegogo is an open platform that allows anyone to raise funds but campaigns are removed if they violate the platform’s Terms of Use.

A new Washington Post interview with Salo quotes scientists whose 9/11 research agrees with the official story. In addition, the interview is interspersed with links to articles mocking those who might question Washington’s version of events, such as False flags, true believers and trolls: Understanding conspiracy theories after tragedies (which claims that a “conspiracy worldview comes from childhood socialization”) or A YouTube video claims ‘Back to the Future’ predicted 9/11 — and that isn’t even the weird part.

Salo claims to have no problem with the government’s version of events on September 11, 2001. But he insists that it’s worth checking the official narrative with further research.

“I cannot predict whether it will be in line with my or your thinking,” he says about his proposed experiment. “But I want to find out either way.”

Editor’s Note: Following publication of this article, an Indiegogo representative contacted WhoWhatWhy and asked us to clarify that there is no screening process prior to a campaign being launched on the crowdfunding platform. However, after launch, some campaigns are removed if they are determined to have violated the company’s Terms of Use. 


Related front page panorama photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from New York City September 11, 2001 (Comer Zhao / Flickr – CC BY-SA 2.0)

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

49 responses to “9/11 REDUX: “Truth” Goes Viral”

  1. Stewart Hart says:

    Mr Salo, never a truther, only wanting to do a high profile stunt. I wonder if all the resistance has opened his eyes.

  2. LanceThruster says:

    A coworker said Mythbusters corroborated the official narrative (jet fuel melting steel beams). Anyone have a site examining their assertions?

  3. umbrarchist says:

    The media has to flip out. It is strange that the word ‘mass’ does not even appear in the article. Doesn’t the first level of a 110 story building have to be strong enough to support the weight of 109 stories? Doesn’t the 30th level have to support the weight of 80? So won’t the 30th level probably have less steel than the 1st? The same for the 50th, and 70th, and 90th.
    It should not be any kind of great or complex mystery!

    So how does the mediat and structural engineers manage to not discuss it for FIFTEEN YEARS?

  4. MarieElena Istina says:

    I just want to see if a piece of the airplane would fall down on impact. I mean how is it on 9/11 the planes seemed to just melt into the buildings? Just seeing that would be interesting.

  5. BourrasqueDeNeige says:

    I still find it interesting that in the history of the world, only three glass and steel high-rise buildings have collapsed due to fires. All three happened on the same day and each one feel nearly directly into their own footprints. The odds of that happening are pretty high. Does anyone know if there were any amendments to building codes issued by NIST to prevent this kind of collapse in the future?

  6. Pablo Novi says:

    For about 9 months, I was the Director of (Steve De’ak ‘s) 911 Crash Test Project. Though I am no longer working on it, I still agree with the concept 100%. The world deserves to know if such flimsy, thin, rounded aluminum can penetrate several such massive steel columns (backed as they were by spandrel plates &, every 12 feet, an acre of concrete).
    Heck, if you were to fire an all-aluminum bullet at the purported 9/11 speed, a bullet that would be shaped a 1,000 times better for penetrating things; would it have any chance at all of penetrating that steel? (Don’t try this at home, cause that bullet’s gonna bounce off and perhaps come back towards you.
    ALL the video of the 2nd crash (the first having 1-2 videos total; and blurry at that) do NOT show what we were told: That speed at that altitude should have shredded the plane. Then the left wing disappears before it even reaches the building. Then there is zero reaction between the plane & the building on “contact”; even those massive engines show no reaction whatsoever, and they were wider in diameter than the width between 3 WTC Twin Tower exterior columns – so they had to have hit 2-3 columns each. Then the entire “plane” slides into the building like a hot knife through butter. Then no plane elements are seen stopped by the exterior and then dropping; but, hitting many columns, at least a good deal of the plane should have been stopped at the wall. It just goes on and on.

    • Steve De'ak says:

      Hi Pablo,

      Paul’s test will prove how difficult it would be to fly a jet at the advertised speed and altitude, and how difficult it would be to hit the building, and we should expect to see real crash dynamics (unlike what we saw on 9/11,) so I am in support of his test.

      Peace, Brother.

      Steve

    • Stewart Hart says:

      Your test would certainly provide more evidence but his is better than nothing.

    • tosman says:

      NOVI: “Heck, if you were to fire an all-aluminum bullet ”

      Hundreds of years ago, Newton was approximating the impact depth for projectiles traveling at high velocities – even before he understood kinetic energy. Newton’s approximation for the impact depth can also be used to examine PBS Nova’s baloney “crush down” and pancaking theories. Nova had the lighter top section of WTC crush the heavier lower sections. Impossible. NIST was no better.

      Using a 767 and an abandoned building would be a stunt worthy of ‘Geraldo’ . Jonathan Cole’s latest WTC physical models (seen @911SpeakOut,org ) only cost a few thousand dollars (and many hours). Cole also makes Myth Busters and National Geographic look stupid when they try to make the WTC physics work (and thermite Not work) in a couple of his videos.

      NOVI: “Then wing disappears before it reaches the building. Then the entire “plane” slides into the building like a hot knife through butter. ”

      Didn’t you see the Road Runner do that in cartoons? See September Clues or Battling the Matrix and Freeing Oneself from the Roger Rabbit World

    • Pablo Novi says:

      tosman,
      Nice post.
      Are you in any position to find do the research yourself; get somebody else to do it; or find any studies/results that scientifically investigate aluminum projectiles fired at solid steel targets. (I’ve been calling for this to be tested for over 1.5 years.) Such a super-simple and super-cheap test, if properly conducted and documented could CHANGE THE BALL GAME. As I assume would be the case, an aluminum bullet will not penetrate steel as massive as the exterior columns of the WTC Twin Towers. Instead, I’d expect it to penetrate barely at all, while flattening out completely, and then bouncing off.
      Given that, this would be conclusive proof that the super-thin, rounded aluminum of that Boeing’s wings & fuselage & tail could not have cut thru all that steel (columns, spandrel plates, & all backed by an acre of concrete every 12 vertical feet.
      btw, I’ve seen and appreciated Cole’s demo. I also learned some things from the “September Clues” movie (being no photo/video analyst whatsoever); but I think it has the fundamental flaw of claiming every single thing about the WTC Plaza on 9/11 was CGI (computer generated images). If you accept ALL of what they posit, you’re left with this:
      1) That morning, on 9/11, the Twin Towers & Building #7 were standing;
      2) That evening, on 9/11, all three buildings had disappeared;
      3) All photo/video “evidence” is fake; ergo
      WE HAVE NO IDEA WHATSOEVER OF EITHER HOW OR WHEN THE 3 BUILDINGS CAME DOWN.
      But we have ZERO witnesses (seeing, capturing on film, or hearing), that we know about, who/which testify to ANY OTHER time or method for their disappearance (other than the Twins collapsing or being destroyed straight down in the morning and #7 dropping like a CD at 5:20 in the afternoon).
      Another thing, we do have video evidence in which one videographer accidentally tapes another videographer filming the collapses. This seems to be to be “conclusive” that at least some of the video evidence is valid because both of them (or all of them IF there are even more examples of this) show the collapses/destructions from slightly different angles yet each appears in other videos doing so. Even if the Perps falsified all kinds of photo/video evidence; it seems to me that this “cross-filming” says that some of the video evidence; theirs in particular .. shows that the Twins DID come down at the time we were told and very quickly.

    • umbrarchist says:

      Create a computer simulation of the north tower, then completely remove 5 levels, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap, more damage than airliner impact and fires could possibly do.

      Simulate the fall of 15 stories onto 90 stories. If 30 or more stories of the simulation are still standing then what?

    • tosman says:

      Each of the 15 stories is lighter than the lower 90 stories of course.

  7. danny j says:

    This proposed “test” would not only be irrelevant, but also prohibitively expensive.

    On the other hand, Steve De’ak has proposed a simple test of a crucial hypothesis of the Official Conspiracy Theory. Can an aluminum wing slice through structural steel?

    He wants to rent the rocket sled facility used by the Military/Industrial Complex… and Myth Busters… to propel a section of a 767 wing at the claimed speed into steel columns made to the specs of the WTC Towers. Will the wing slice through the towers as we all saw on the videos or will it crumple and leave the steel in place as in many other real world examples of planes crashing into objects or objects (including birds) crashing into planes?

    • Zanrak says:

      And the planet you live on is? Cheeporock? Uh, 1.5 mil today is very, very little money. The gov’t. spent 15 mil. investigating 911 to begin with, and 30mi. l investing the monica lewinsky affair! 1.5 mil? C’mon….
      And your last question – really? Ya really think aluminum slices through steel? Ya have to see it with your own eyes, huh? Sooooooooo many people have zero imagination.

  8. travis690 says:

    Relying on the “conspiracy theory” illusion to dismiss this case is ridiculous. Dismissing the claims just because a government came up with a different theory is despicable.

    I see ulterior motives on the part of anyone dismissing the claims as some kind of conspiracy theory, especially when most who utter the word “conspiracy” don’t even know the meaning nor the origin of the word.

    I am always for higher levels of exposure of the details of these issues than I am in advocating whatever some government lackey (and that’s being nice) wants to have presented as the “official” viewpoint. Yet too often, we are dismissing examining of evidence because we can wrap up the line of thinking into some neat term that has already developed a negative connotation because of lack of curiosity.

    If anyone wants to talk about conspiracies, then maybe they can tell the world why our government is opposed to releasing the entirety of the report of what they believe actually happened on September 11, 2001.

    • Pablo Novi says:

      Hey Travis,
      In addition to your last paragraph … why has our government refused to release any of the tapes from the 85 video cameras covering the Pentagon that day?? There has to be either proof of the Official Conspiracy Theory or proof that it did not happen that way. If the US Gov has nothing to hide, they would have released the videos that day after 9/11; and certainly not kept them secret for almost 15 years.

    • wayne1954 says:

      Of the video cameras near the Pentagon, four have been released. The CITGO video captures the shadow of the plane approaching the Pentagon. The timing is correct – about 2.5 to 3 seconds before the fireball is captured by reflections off of cars – and just before Sgt. Lagasse gets in his police car and backs out to head to the Pentagon.

    • Ron Maimon says:

      None of the Pentagon videos have been released, and nothing is consistent with the hoax government story.

  9. prov6yahoo says:

    If you think about this kind of stuff enough it can lead you to believe that everything you know is a lie. All the history we know is what we have been told, and the very, very little of it that we have actually seen with our own eyes.

    • raoulleraoulle says:

      “the very, very little of it that we have actually seen with our own eyes.” is the only bit we can actually know, it’s our personal real truth.

      Error there: How do you mix truth of our own eyes in with the history lies and call them both lies ?

      All that I’ve been told, from newspapers tv radio mags blogs, and most official history is probably a lie, I’m long past being led there mate, I’m full on there with miles. and I know the difference between what I know and what I’m told, and I’m getting on fine.

    • Zanrak says:

      Anyone who begins to wonder can start with reading Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History Of The United States”…. Problem is, so few “wonder”….

    • buzzard says:

      Yes, Howard Zinn is a good place to start. We’ve never be told the truth about history. It’s all a bunch of BS. The problem is people are much too naive.

    • Ron Maimon says:

      Actually, you can get a good picture when you have at least two competing narratives, like during the entire cold war. There was always the Russian and American view, and they rarely agreed on anything. You need multiple competing narratives to tease out the historical facts, but it is possible. In the case of 9/11, there is only the government nonsense, but it is still possible to tease out more or less what happened by reviewing the drills, and looking at the information presented on truther sites, especially Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and Scientists for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

      The government story is a lie substantiated by unprecedented journalist intimidation. This is the worst perversion of American media in the history of the country. The parallels in the Clinton and Obama administrations are minor by comparison.

  10. prov6yahoo says:

    Yep, seems that the more vehemently they denounce something the more you can believe in it, so what does this tell you about them actually imprisoning “holocaust deniers?” It could make you think that Hitler wasn’t even a bad guy.

    • raoulleraoulle says:

      yup, he was a patsy

    • Ron Maimon says:

      The US doesn’t imprison holocaust deniers, they are fully protected by the first amendment. They are just incorrect on the facts of the matter. The 9/11 truthers, on the other hand, are correct on the facts.

  11. Axel Mattson says:

    Why not start cheap and simple and test John Lear’s assertion that a 767 cannot fly at those speeds at that altitude?

  12. Jimmy Miller says:

    Dude – quadruple the amount of jet fuel, fly 4 jumbo jets into building – it will still be standing if steel comparable to twin towers. If America could handle the truth of 911 – which it can not – we would have a real chance at becoming the great nation our founders intended. Unfortunately, Nov 1963 ended that dream when the death-war-torture (for massive profits) team took control. 911 was gloves off.

    • Ron Maimon says:

      America can certainly handle it. In NYC, it almost goes without saying that it was an inside job. The transition was rather sudden, and recent.

  13. NeilBJ says:

    This is taken from the final NIST report written in 2008, which supposedly describes the collapse of WTC7.

    Quote:

    • In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft).

    • In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support (note 1) to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and r= 4.0s.

    • In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0 s and 5.4 s, the north face corner fell an additional 39.6 m (130 ft).

    As noted above, the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of descent (note 2). The detailed analysis shows that this increase in time is due primarily to Stage 1. The three stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global collapse analyses discussed in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR l-9.

    End quote

    Note that NIST does document 2.25 seconds of actual free fall. In a video, (WTC7 NIST Finally Admits Freefall) Dr. Shyam Sunder acknowledges that free fall can occur only if there is no structural resistance. Yet in the report, the free fall is ignored and included in the summary statement that stated that the collapse sequence was 40% longer than free fall. That is what I call a cover-up hiding in plain sight.

  14. JanaDew says:

    “Of course, the experiment he wishes to undertake, which is to fly an airplane into an old high-rise building, will not yield meaningful results, because it will be a different structural system and because it is impossible to recreate precisely the conditions experienced on 9/11.”

    What if the building construction and materials used are of poorer quality and the building still stands days/months/years later? Would that change your opinion? Didn’t think so.

  15. faustinaagatha says:

    Curious how vehement the mocking when people question official events of 9/11. Surely what happened to the three towers was unique and should be investigated if only to make better buildings.

    • tosman says:

      “In which other circumstance would the reaction of the media to someone questioning the official line be so severe?”

      25 years ago, the corporate media went after Oliver Stone BEFORE the release of his block buster film. LBJ’s buddy, Jack Valenti led the Brooks Brothers mob:

      “The then president and chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America, denounced Stone’s film in a seven-page statement. He wrote, “In much the same way, young German boys and girls in 1941 were mesmerized by Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will, in which Adolf Hitler was depicted as a newborn God. Both JFK and Triumph of the Will are equally a propaganda masterpiece…”

      Stone recalls in an interview, “I can’t even remember all the threats, there were so many of them.”

    • faustinaagatha says:

      Thank you for the history lesson, tosman. I saw that movie but was unaware of the hype surrounding it.

  16. anarchyst says:

    …buildings hit by aircraft do not fall into their own “footprints”…

  17. sputnik says:

    It won’t work anyway!

    You can’t fly that plane at that speed at that altitude. You’re way outside the ‘flight envelope” at that speed at that altitude, because the atmosphere is too dense for that speed at that altitude. Pilots for 9-11 truth has a video in which a small bunch of commercial pilots has already tried to fly that plane into that building on a flight simulator. Nobody could do it, except one guy, on his tenth try, by luck. A pilot has no control to speak of over that aircraft at that speed at that altitude, and, more often than not, what you see on the flight simulator is the wings being blown off. (Which is why high-speed aircraft — military jet fighters, the Concorde — have those swept back delta wings, dig? Even at high altitudes, they need less wing presented to the oncoming air.)

    The air is too dense; the “wind resistance,” or viscous drag, is too great, and any slightest touch to the controls will develop 12 to 13 times the response from that density of air rushing past at the NTSB estimate of 510 knots, or 586 miles per hour. (National Transportation Safety Board. I’ve run the numbers through the relevant physical formula.) And the moment you angle just a bit more airfoil — wings, rear stabilizers — into that wind speed, you run an overwhelming risk of structural disintegration. It’s totally out of control. It’s death with an astronomically high probability. Research John Lear on the subject. Yes, THAT Lear, of jet manufacturing fame.

    Skip the experiment. You just got the answer to the riddle, anyhow. Didn’t happen as reported.

    Which goes a long way towards explaining why there was no plane wreckage at any one of the several supposed crash sites.

    Tough to swallow for some, I know. I didn’t like it one bit, but I’m goin’ wi’ da physics. Don’t argue with the physics, folks.

    • tosman says:

      Skip the experiment? As Feynman said, “If it disagrees with experiment” – it’s wrong.
      David Chandler had NIST re-writing their report after they tried to argue the physics.

      Jonathan Cole makes Myth Busters and National Geographic look stupid when they try to make the WTC physics work in a couple of his videos.

    • $23944354 says:

      I agree to some extent. Start off by proving that a 767 can even fly at the known speeds and altitude. Work up from there, people will begin to take notice when the see a stock aircraft come apart at the seems even before it hits the speeds attained that morning.

    • Ron Maimon says:

      There was an engine that fell on Murray St, and it matches the model used in military aircraft. It is false to claim no plain wreckage at WTC. There was also wreckage in Pennsylvania, scattered over many square kilometers, consistent with a plane blown up at 30,000 ft by a missile, not with a crash. This is also consistent with witness testimony.

  18. Nowpower says:

    I like his idea even if it appears impractical. Scale it down? Why not? Why not more interest in why and how the three towers fell? I’ll tell you why, because the gov knows the truth and any additional investigation would reveal the plotters more directly. Three names you should google with 9/11 are John O’Neill, Barry Jennings and … Rodriguez – can’t recall his first name. Enjoy!

    • azlibrabbit says:

      We all know how Building Seven fell. It was reported on live tv that the decision had been taken to “pull it.” I saw and heard it myself, as I’m sure millions of others did.

      What I wonder is how they were able to pull a building that was not wired under the chaotic circumstances of that day? The only explanation is that it, as the other two buildings, was preset to fall that day.

  19. Jeff Clyburn says:

    I’d like to see a “re-enactment” of the money trail. It’s far more court-admissible and unassailable.

    • tosman says:

      Last week, the Times reported that “a Search Dog and Symbol of 9/11 Heroism – The last living 9/11 rescue dog named Bretagne (pronounced “Brittany”) has passed away”. Her death was confirmed by the Houston rescue team Texas Task Force 1 ….”

      The New York Times does not report that dogs trained for explosives were not allowed on WTC on 9/11 (or 9/12 or 9/13..) Why not? Too much thermite in the air? Brittany was likely a pup that was NOT trained for explosives.

      Money trail? A Federal Reserve economist investigated suspicious cash transfers before 9/11. SeptemberClues looks into the central role of the Media on 9/11. The Harley guy was the first to explain the thermodynamics and physics on Fox – Dan Rather didn’t get the memo.

      Jonathan Cole makes Myth Busters and National Geographic look stupid when they try to make the WTC physics work in a couple of his videos.

  20. Sinan says:

    There are to many points ruled out , for example the exact copy of the structure , then there are doubts about the type of the engines.Those planes were modified.Probably full with explosives and other steel frame busting material.Due to the engines look up Pilots for 9/11 truth.

  21. miro says:

    Let us bow our heads and concede that the exact conditions of the towers vs flying objects of 911could never be replicated. Should we necessarily conclude there could be no useful information derived from scaled down, or completely out of scale crash testing? Yes, that is not scientific; and could even be open to shading and bias. How would it look, for example, if you used a target building that was of similar construction to the towers, but one quarter the size…only to leave it standing with a burned out airliner stuck in the upper floors? ( As opposed to pancaking and powdering straight down with some remaining steel standing). Wouldn’t look good. Can’t have that. It would be argued that it proved nothing and that the greater mass of the real tower collapsing took it down. But still, could it be useful input?

  22. Little_Caesar says:

    It appears that people now are afraid of the truth. We have been suckered into believing a lie. The easy road is taken for fear of feeling alone is too great for some to handle.

  23. Easyrhino says:

    Anyone who believes the official US Fed-Gov physics defying crackpot fantasy is either willfully ignorant or intellectually lazy.

    The jet that allegedly hit the Pentagon was basically a hollow tube with the most dense part of the jet being the two wing mounted 11,000 pound engines about 15 feet away from the fuselage on either wing.

    Before the outer ring of the Pentagon collapsed the impact hole was 14-16 feet wide with the wall on either side of the hole completely intact. Why was there no damage on the wall, on either side of the hole, from the jet’s two 5 ton engines?

    Furthermore, the first reporter on the scene at the Pentagon reported that he saw absolutely no jet debris. Pentagon employee April Gallop, who exited the impact hole, also reported seeing no jet debris.

    You’re being scammed!

    • Zanrak says:

      I call ’em: fools or liars – and for their soul’s sake, I hope they’re fools….

    • wayne1954 says:

      This statement is incorrect: “Before the outer ring of the Pentagon collapsed the impact hole was
      14-16 feet wide with the wall on either side of the hole completely
      intact. Why was there no damage on the wall, on either side of the
      hole, from the jet’s two 5 ton engines?” The opening is at least 80 feet on the first floor. The opening is continuous and is wide enough to accommodate the airframe structure between the engines including the fuselage.

  24. Orangutan. says:

    Jonathan Cole has done some previous experiments along the same vein. Hopefully more will get done.

  25. Robert says:

    The proof that the tower collapses were a false flag lie in the fact that NIST stopped their computer models before the collapse sequences because they knew they would prove the hoax. That the cover-up is believed is a credit to the scope of the combined powers of the media, government, corporate militarists, and banking cartels manipulations. They planned and started several wars and will not stop until total hegemony exists for those who pull the strings.
    Next up blame Russia and China then attack them with Obama’s new nuclear arsenal.
    The dollar collapse is imminent so nuclear war will be used to prop it up.

  26. Shawn says:

    If I won the lottery tomorrow, a great deal of it would go to proving the official conspiracy theory wrong. Anyways, if they’re so confident with their story, what are they worried about?