9/11 1WTC North Tower vs. Controlled Demolition

9/11 1WTC North Tower vs. Controlled Demolition


WTC7 vs. Controlled Demolition


very, very nice....

very, very nice....

You Tube subscribers:

Rate the video 5 *stars*, add it to your Favorites, and add a positive comment.

This helps the video's ranking and popularity!


I'm glad you included the barge demolition in the WTC1 video

The barge demolition shows just how fast the dust cloud starts and expands from even a three story top down demolition. This video shows in a very close up way that it does not take a large amount of explosive to cause a large dust cloud and the expansion of it. While dust is initially caused by the blasts, much of the final cloud is caused by the collisions of the debris.

The demolitions of the twin towers appear to have been 30+ three story standard controlled demolitions of the central cores, one on top of the other all the way down. So in effect it was a top down demolition. The reason for demolishing the central core outer columns is that their removal alone would bring the building down. The central core column welds occurred every three stories and they were the easiest point to attack, which would minimize the amount of explosives needed. The barge demo used charges on every floor since it needed to get the released gravitational energy to become kinetic energy right away due to having only three floors.

To get a feel for what occurred in the tower demolitions imagine a three story section of the central core of the twin towers being the barge and then imagine thirty some of the barge demolitions one on top of the other. The advantage to the perpetrators was that the core columns were well inside of the perimeter which would keep most of the explosions hidden from view.

The aircraft impacts were simply causal ruses needed to claim a natural collapse initiated due to impact damage and fire.

Tony, Your Collapse Mechanism Narrative

is compelling. Could you distinguish between thermate/thermite use and traditional explosive- type(eg. C-4) charges.when talking about collapse mechinism.

For example, when you say that demolition explosives were used every three floors because of the weld points on the steel columns does this change the explosive planting scenario as has been posited before and does the steel cut every three floors produce transportable lengths. If your collapse mechanism refinement differs from previous ones can you say how and which details, if any, should be changed in the previous thinking. Good work.

There actually are some other facets to it


I believe that the initiation of the collapse would have been caused by thermate, which would have been in the areas where the aircraft impact would occur. Thermate will not ignite due to shock and it's ignition temperature is far too high for fires to ignite it. The ignition devices could have been buried in the thermate to protect them from fire. This would have been done to make it look like fire caused the initiation. I also believe that thermate would have been used to weaken the perimeter column corners to eliminate their stiffening of the perimeter walls, since the use of explosives there would have been a dead giveaway.

Another interesting fact is that the collapses actually started above the aircraft impact sites or where there was little aircraft impact damage. They started on the 98th floor in the North Tower where most of the aircraft impact damage was on the 94th thru the 96th. The same thing occurred in the South Tower with the initiation occurring at the 82nd floor.

After the above all that needed to be done was to take out the 24 outer central core columns and the building would come rolling down. Cutting these 24 columns would also cause the perimeter wall to be pulled inward (bowed inward) at the start of the collapse and would also pull down much of the remaining smaller 21 internal core columns through pulling on them with the interconnecting beams, until the columns got strong enough to resist the pulling and the connections broke first. This would account for the lower internal core columns still standing after most of the collapse had passed. I am still working on just how the remnants of the inner core, which was still standing for a few seconds, came down.

I believe explosives would have been used on these 24 outer core column welds every third floor everywhere but at the initiation site floors. The use of explosives would be for reliability to keep the collapse moving after it was started via thermate.

I have recently looked into just how much explosive would be needed to take down these 24 outer core columns, every three floors at their welds, and it is in the 2,000 to 4,000 lb. range.

The core columns were welded every 36 feet which would certainly make them easily transportable. That is probably one of the reasons they were made 36 feet long to begin with, to facilitate transportation to the site during the construction of the buildings. If you look at photos of the rubble you will see some longer lengths but these are probably inner core columns which would not have been attacked and were pulled down by the outer core columns.

I am thinking about writing a short paper for the Journal of 911 Studies, outlining this demolition scenario, to give people an idea of how the demolitions could have been done which matches observation, and to refute the notions of large amounts of explosive being needed to cause the dust clouds. Do you think it is needed? I am not the only one who proposes this scenario. Gordon Ross, another mechanical engineer who has written on this, believes it was done along similar lines.

Thanks For The Insight Tony

I look forward to reading more of your work. Good Luck in your investigations.

(edit) Also, Richard Gage refers to the use of sol gels (eg.sodium silicate) to encase the thermite/thermite to render it attachable to the steel beams(I believe that is an accurate description of what he said in reference to a chemical tag for a sol gel found by FEMA). This means that the thermite device could assume a common ornate or structural shape found in building architechure as another use of sol gels is as a binder of sand for pottery casting.

My point is that perhaps it would be useful for someone associated with the J9/11S to produce some models of how the explosives could have been attached in all the buildings and even disguised-what could practically have been done.

Can we actually reproduce a thermite charge burning through a large upright steel beam(10-15 ft tall) and show on video how this would look?

Such a project would illustrate dramatically the some of the action that is hidden behind walls during controlled demolition and perhaps draw media attention to the issues at hand if promoted.

An experiment of this type should be done

I have recently expressed an interest in seeing some additional testing to determine the feasibility of using thermate in the tower situations myself and you have added another dimension to it.

I am advocating an experiment to determine how ignition devices for the thermate could be protected from the fires, as one question which is raised is how could they survive the fires. I believe radio controlled devices could be implanted in the thermate. These notions need to be proven. The sol gel notion could be done at the same time.

A video of a radio controlled ignition of a sol gel thermate taking out a steel column in a fire would be very powerful.

I am going to propose this to Dr. Steven Jones, as if you remember he is the one who originally mentioned thermate, radio control, and sol gel as possibilities.

I don't know if it would need to be hidden if it was on the central core outer column weld planes as these would only be visible from inside the elevator shafts. I would believe that the outer casing would be made to have the same color as the steel so in that sense there would be some means of hiding it. In the case of the perimeter column corners it would be the bolted joints between the columns which would be attacked and these could be gotten to through access panels and would be hidden naturally.

Exciting Experiment

Many would follow the demonstration of a thermate charge cutting a large steel beam and would it draw great attention to the work of Dr. Jones and experts such as Richard Gage and yourself. Best of luck in your proposal to Dr. Jones.

An interesting point about the sol gels is that they would seem to allow for casting the thermate charge ,with ignition device inside, to the exact dimensions of the steel beams for easy installation.

Another specific use of sol gels is in thermal insulation applications such as ceramics .

One other point about a chemical such as sodium silicate used as a binder for thermate components is consideration of the strengh of the casting. Whereas a concrete casting is extremely strong. a binding made with sodium silicate(also called waterglass) would be relatively much softer. These are some points you might need to take into consideration so please check the accuracy of my comments. Best wishes.

Here ya go Tony


Perhaps there's some info on that thread that can be useful for the experiment you're proposing.


"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

Youtube thermite charge

Youtube Linear Thermite Cutting Charge...

Obviously an extremely fast reaction.


Did you scroll down that thread concerning the "Thermite destructive device" patent I posted?

Here's a brief description:


For unconventional warfare activities requiring the destruction of machinery and metallic structures, an operational need exists for a device of such simple construction that the user has only to place it in position, start his time delay, and leave. From a tactical standpoint, high heat flux materials such as thermite have the greater advantage of silence; in contrast, high explosives would, without fail, arouse attention in the vicinity of the target area. From an operational and logistic standpoint, a device that is smaller and lighter is a must to assist in lightening the load carried by the soldier and to reduce the number of resupply missions."


This is one type of device that I believe was planted on the steel columns in the WTC (I'm not saying this exact device was used, but something similar with more destructive power). The patent was applied for in 1996 -- Five years before 9/11 -- so who really knows what type of devices may have been developed off the books before the 9/11/01 inside job.

"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

The patent was interesting

Stallion, that device is very interesting and I would not doubt that something along those lines could have been used.

I think thermate was used where the perpetrators could not risk either auditory or visual evidence of explosions such as at the beginning of the collapses and on the corners of the perimeter walls. For higher reliability I believe explosives would have then been used to keep the collapse moving where the sound would be masked by the collapse and could be kept within the perimeter to keep it from being visual.

Another reason for the use of thermate in the aircraft impact and fire affected areas would be its high ignition temperature. Explosives may not ignite but they will burn and become unusable. Thermate would not have this problem if it's ignition device can be protected. As I said earlier, I am interested in seeing if we can get an experiment to show those ignition devices could have been protected and to do a thermate cut on a steel beam in a fire.

Yes, An Amazing Piece Stallion

Im still trying to digest and understand. The Inventor covers a wide variety of enhancements of the thermite reaction. The invention seemed to be a machine capable of cutting large quantities of steel, specifically old steel bridges, and had to account for worker safety as well as protection of the machine.

The thermite reaction is also used commonly by railways to fuse rails.

Here is a design for a Thermite Torch which includes an electric match for ignition. This may be an example of the type of ignition switch Tony might be interested in.


considering how molten copper is used in part of the design I am tempted to postulate that the "EFP" devices that have penetrated American armor in Iraq seem to be thermite reaction based events.


I'm forwarding this video to all my contacts. It really helps us see what is still so difficult for many people to believe. Deeply relevant and compelling comparisons, excellently presented. Great work. Thank you.

DivX download of North Tower

DivX download of North Tower comparison clip: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=TR692P9Y
South Tower vs. Controlled Demolition:

Divx download of South Tower comparison clip:
Alternate South Tower download link if that one doesn't work:
Please distribute at will! Best wishes all! :)

North Tower Antenna just turns to dust Why not intact on ground?

Herblay FRANCE

Bonsoir ,

The videos are very educational and I will pass them arournd ! Good work !

At last, we are starting to see the destruction of the North Tower Antenna which once on the ground litteraly turns to dust. In the thousands of 911 high quality Fema photos that I studied, I never once saw the TV dish antenna that I could expect to be complete and not squashed !
( http://911blogger.com/node/12792#comment-170637 attention the -3 note is deliberate so as not to have the thousand list long taking up all the screen ! You just have to click on un hide. )

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Why were the dishes not just lying on top of the rubble ?

Yours John

This antenna?

"Pieces of the broadcast antennae recovered from World Trade Tower 1. Several pieces of the antennae are kept in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport.
(Photo by Lane Johnson)"





"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

Thanks for the post. Anyone have photos just before breaking up?

Herblay FRANCE ,

Thank you these super pics, I have been looking for WTC1 antenna since 2002.

You do not by the way have a video of it braking up ?

I copied one on my disk and we have the impression that it turns to dust. A suivre...

(text following was added the 09/12/07 11h28 french time)
These pieces are whole and easily identified. When the towers came down these pieces should have been lying on the blanket of dust ruble. On French television we saw Americans very shortly after the collapse risk their lives to take photos. Is there no way we can get copies ? For the antenna should have a story to tell because once at ground level there are no normal forces present which can explain it breaking into pieces. Normally it was a solid cylinder sticking out of the ruble as can be seen by the pic above.

I had a photo of the antenna diagram when it was build on the North Tower in1978 and searched three hours last night on my disks and the web but could not find it again.
. . http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/
. . http://www.shock17.com/watch-Jsm7dKRUeqM.html

Yours John

You're very welcome, but...

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I personally don't believe the antenna was "turned to dust", because I'm satisfied that these pics prove that it wasn't (as well as another pic of the antenna I've seen that was very large and intact, but I was unable to locate that pic for you. If I find it I'll try to post it here).

And I haven't seen "video of it braking up" or "turning to dust" either, so I really don't know what you're talking about, sorry.

"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

With your photos the antenna did not "turn to dust"

With your photos I can see like you that the antenna did not "turn to dust". The fade away of the antenna I saw on a video was perhaps a fake or the dust was the explosives going off and the pieces fell out of sight hiden by the dust. If I refind the video in my archives I will put it up.

Now that we have your photos we know that the antenna ended up in pieces and we need to know what physical forces broke it up?

Yours John

You’re trying to say that

You’re trying to say that "Space Beams" disintegrated the spire? It's already been conclusively shown with higher resolution video that the spire started to fall and knocked a load of dust of it in the process – and then fell through that dust. It dot not "disintegrate".

NO it was more likely to be explosives

I am not saying at all that "Space Beams disintegrated the spire. Especially as we have photos of the antenna above. Thanks to stallion4

The reply following yours suggesting an impulsive force is a track.

In one than more video we can see the spire stable standing up from the ground for about three seconds. For the moment I would suspect explosives but I am open to new data.

I am looking on my disks for my video copie of the spire disintegrating.
I think it was in the video
. http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
but I cannot confirm it because the the link now gives nothing and the link is not in Internet achives ==> http://www.archive.org/
I refound the link to the spire photo
. http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg
Found this following German? .avi showing the antenna breaking
. http://web.archive.org/web/20070116040440/http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wt...
you have to click on the link
The web site
. http://www.terrorize.dk/911
does not seem to exist anymore but as you cans see it is the internet archives

Make copies because this is rare video if not faked.

Yours John

The remaining spire might have been taken down explosively

I too am wondering just how the remaining spires of the inner core columns came down. There may have been explosives at the base, which is likely as the same thing happened in both towers. Here there would only be a need to take the remainder out at the bottom instead of every three floors with the outer core columns.

Spire Compilation

Let me know if I missed any high quality shots and or vids of it.

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.

As usual,

your work is very thorough, jkeogh. I find you to be one of the best, most thorough researches around.

Quick question: I don't have a sound card on this computer -- is there sound or not?

No sound on the myspace

No sound on the myspace version that I saw.

Impulsive loads due to collisions would have broken it up

After the antenna falls from the roof it gains momentum which is mass x velocity. With air resistance being negligible on a heavy streamlined object like the antenna mast, a fall from 1368 feet would have the antenna moving at 200 mph when it hits the ground. The equation for freefall time is

t = sqrt(2 x distance/g)

which is 9.218 seconds for 1368 feet

The velocity equation for freefall is then

v = g x t

with g = 32.2ft/sec/sec

that gives 297 feet/second or 202 mph.

The equation for the deceleration due to an impulse is

G = change in the momentum/duration of the collision

The harder the items involved the shorter the duration. A duration of 100 milliseconds is a long one for something as hard as the antenna. Since mass does not change we can just divide the velocity by the duration. So 297 ft/s divided by .100 seconds gives 2790 ft/sec/sec. Now to find the number of G's divide by 32.2 ft/sec/sec or 1 G. Dividing 2970 by 32.2 gives 92 G's. Now using F = ma multiply that deceleration by the mass of the antenna to find the force applied to it. It is at least 20,000,000 pounds of force as the antenna mast weighed well over 100 tons or 200,000 lbs.

What do you think will happen to the antenna mast when it experiences a force of 20,000,000 lbs.?


I've seen a lot of building demo comparison's since 9/11 and I find it interesting that they seem to have widely differing styles. These are the first I've seen where the style compares directly to the WTC demo.

My question is: do different demo companies have different techniques? Just like house builders all build houses, but the houses vary in style.

If they do, then finding out who 'pulled' the buildings in this [the first] video might lead to a definite identification of the culprit.

Or not, of course.

Always hoping.

Show "What about this" by tony

is it possibl to know who is putting negative note to the above?

Herblay FRANCE

bonsoir ,

is it possible to know who is putting the negative notes to the above entry ?

If someone is putting negative notes to something, he is big enough to sign his act ?




Maybe it is more relevant to know the *why* instead of the *who*. Read this:


Best video so far

This is the most convincing video i have seen.

We are working to a sound bite audience that doesn't want to believe it could happen here.

Tried this video on a skeptical friend. After a year and a half of presenting evidence, ........ got him!

direct download

Thanks for this video, here is direct link to get this in quality .avi: WTC-North-Tower-Demolition-Comparison.avi (14 MB, 640x480)