Top Down Demolition

As mentioned on the Thom Hartmann show;

One of the main arguments defenders of the official story have made against the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers is that demolitions never start at the top of the building. In other words, they claim that demolitions always start at the bottom and proceed upwards.

However, a new video shows an example of a top-down demolition of another building:

Moreover, there were numerous reports of huge explosions in the basement and other locations well below the collapse zones in the Twin Towers. For example, a stationary engineer who worked in the basement of one of the towers testified that an entire below-level garage and a 50-ton hydraulic press were demolished long before the tower collapsed.

Therefore, the demolition of the Twin Towers was, arguably, not that dissimilar from the video of many demolitions -- such as Seattle's King Dome -- where explosions and squibs are seen at the bottom of the building before the top comes down.

Because the basements of the Twin Towers were solid (and because the Twin Towers were occupied, not abandoned -- and often times gutted -- as they are prior to conventional demolitions), explosions in the basement and core of the Twin Towers would not necessarily have been visible from the outside of the building. So they would not have been visible on video. In any event, some explosions were visible prior to the collapse of the Twin Towers, as the video record shows.

Prior to the final demolition sequence, the core supports were cut throughout the Twin Towers, and the basements of the Towers were apparently "hollowed out" so that the Towers could drop into the newly-created holes.

Sure, they were top-down demolitions -- like the video above. But the explosions at the base of the towers may have been much greater than those seen before the tops of buildings come down in most conventional demolitions.

Arie gets the credit for finding, and being the first to post about, the new top-down demolition video.

Excellent Reprehensor

Good video.

Is this the the same Thom Hartmann show with the debate with Kevin Ryan?

Does anyone have the mp3 or audio for this.

I hope it went well, their psy-ops is usually professional and we have to be professional in dealing with them.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it


Shermer must not have a very good search engine.

Thanks for the reply

I believe Shermer is on the pay roll of Der Decider. Hard to believe he is this ignorant if he can't see Controlled Demolition for what it is.

It is the "Almighty" Dollar for th Emperor and his "Clothes"

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

9/11: South Tower vs. Controlled Demolition (including top down)

Link :


Great video produced by [ Xenomorph911 ]

Best wishes


Xenomorph911's video is great!

You can clearly see

the violence from explosions. (gravitation only? hmm)

Besides, the twin tower implosion DOES start at the bottom
....of the blok above the impact.... and when that was imploded
progressing downward.
(But this whole bottom argument is silly actually, the TT demolition was not
a standard demolition, but visibly definately a demolition!)

Thanks all! Currently I'm

Thanks all! Currently I'm still working on a north tower comparison, I'm just lacking free time the last few days. I should have in it a day or so. Thanks for the comments, best wishes!


This must be the finest side by side comparison I've seen to date. Wonderful starting point, or even momentum builder for those who aren't as skeptical yet as they should be.

Thanks for the example!

It concerns me Shermer actually attempts to point to top-down destruction of the twin towers as an argument against demolition! Thanks for the example!

...don't believe them!

Shermer's point about having the building tip over

instead of demolish straight down is problematic.

Here's why:

The purpose of having the buildings look like the plane impacts caused them to collapse was to create a false narrative of events. Visually, if the collapses had occurred any other way, one would have to wonder why. To cause the buildings to topple over, much like was intended in 1993 WTC bombing, one would need weaken the structure somewhere below what ultimately became the planes' point of impact. Explaining the cause of such damage would be difficult without considering controlled demolition, and would strongly hint at an inside job.

Clip from Interview plus a few other jewels

I only caught the second half of the interview and have attached the audio below . . .MS didn't mention area 51 or the Bermuda triangle but covered everything else. I've attached some other clips from my personal collection. Right click and save them and pass them along.

November 8, 2007 Partial 911 Debate Thom Hartmann Show Between Scientist and Circus Clown

October 24, 2007 Architect for Truth Richard Gage on WTIC Drive Time Radio

September 28, 2007 CIA Analyst Ray McGovern Calls 9/11 "Cover-Up and Joke" on KPFA Flashpoints

September 7, 2007 C-Span Washington Journal Listeners Comment On New Bin Laden Tape

August 25, 2007 David Ray Griffin on Clout - Air America Radio

Recommended Reading:

The top section of the

The top section of the building certainly is reminiscent of it. The top looks like a "bottom up" and the bottom looks like a "top-down".

GW, the link needs some

GW, the link needs some tweaking.

I fixed it.

try it now.

The link doesn't work...

... for me ("Page cannot be found").

Commercial-free MP3 of Air America 9/11 Truth Debate

Please let me know if I accidentally cut out any of the debate.

TD vs BU is moot, just 2 sides of the same coin.

When debating the issue of Top Down vs. Bottom Up with other people, I always found it was a moot point. The argument that it couldn't have been a CD because most of the demolitions had always been BU, that doesn't mean TD can't be done (obviously), it just means that in most of the classical demolitions the technique is BU, because it is more economical to work with gravity instead of wasting explosives and labor at the top.

They had to get creative and use the pulverized concrete as a shroud for the squibs and blow out of the floors, so they opted a TD (which failed in some areas where we can see the squibs), then a cutting of core columns with thermate which was evident pouring out of WTC 2 before the pull of the building, and in the molten metal that flowed like lava for weeks underground ... it's that horrifically simply.

Ditto, moot point.

I completely agree, the point is irrelevant.

The idea that WTC twins could not have been brought down by controlled demolition because the building went top down is absurd.

This merely raises a technical non-issue to confuse the "sheeple".


6.5 seconds demands a new investigation

almost more logical way to demo

Top Down Demolition

bobby winn

Keep up the good work...

No one has ever demolited a 110 Story Tall Building before

That is why the building had to be taken down in sections, from the top down, because it was so tall. Especially, since the design of the Towers lent itself to be taken down in sections.

The Towers were like 3 rectangular boxes stacked on top of each other. The easiest way to take down the Towers, would be to blow up each box one at a time in sequence. Also, since the design of the Towers was essentially a tube inside of a tube, most of the fireworks would not be visible from the outside. Just lots of smoke and dust by the time the shock waves hit the windows.