How the video data implies a Controlled Demolition of WTC 1.

There have been at least 3 presentations of evidence that show the simple NIST/BAZANT model of the collapse of the WTC Towers does not fit with the video data, nor does it obey Newton's Third Law.

We tested two simplified Models of a controlled demolition in WTC1 and compared the Models with the video evidence.

(PDF 864kb)
Observations of WTC1 Collapse, the NIST/BAZANT model and 2 Particulate Mass Models.

I'd welcome your thoughts and comments.

you might want to make two versions

First of all, I think its great that you did this, even though it was somewhat over my head. One way to make it easier to digest would be to use a larger font and fewer words per line.

You might want to make two versions: a "dumbed down version" and the version you have posted.

The fact that you are getting so little feedback is probably attributable to the fact that it is over most of our heads. I think that graphs have limited value among non-scientists. So, for the dumbed-down version you might do better with descriptive imagery.

I think all of the real scientists already know that the "collapses" were controlled demolitions. The one's that don't know it are (in my opinion) psychologically blocked. In order to break through the psychological blocks, I think imagery might work better. Just my thoughts.

BUT I think you should not abandon the approach you have taken. The scientific version you have posted just needs to go to people with the education to appreciate it.

second the type thing

The present type size is impossible to read on either screen or print. enlarging so that old farts like me can read it results in the need to slide each line over, leading to a loss of much-needed concentration. Thanks, though, for a thought-provoking presentation.

Why no name?

Interesting article. How can you be contacted? I would like to discuss this with you.
--David Chandler

No Name

No name because then it means it's just about the Physics.

We could discuss it here? or I can get an e-mail address to you via rep?

Actually no name doesn't

Actually no name doesn't necessarily mean it's just about physics, but implies that you do not want to expose yourself to attack, which is fine. But calling yourself "no_body" is somewhat strange -- debunkers often post using negative pseudonyms so it's somewhat disturbing.

A number of people who do good work use a made up name, i.e., Arabesque, Col Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, etc., names have some relevance or fun. And then they are consistently doing strong work, so efforts to attack them for not using their real names go nowhere and only expose the person attempting to "out" them.

Also, although Gregory Urich's work is published at a couple of sites, I would double-check the figures if I were you. He mainly praises the work of Greening and defends the claims of NIST these days, like the belief that the noise from the destruction wasn't loud enough to be a demolition with "cutter charges" or "high explosives", and therefore, was not one. It was strange to see him arguing that viewpoint back in March on a forum, and then see that in the B7 final report. Sounded absurd both times.


So publishing an article about the Physics of 9-11 on the web was because I don't want to expose myself to attack?

Please attack attack, but attack the physics.

If you find the name no_body "disturbing" what does that say about you? Do you mean like spooky?
What's in a name?
Avatars have no body - I like the ZEN of that.
I liked nobody because it negates the individual - the ego - so it focuses on the science (obviously not in your case)

I think everything needs to be treated as potential mis/dis-information on the web especially around this subject - but real science speaks for itself and if this not real science then I'm sure scholars for truth and justice will point it out to me and every one else. I've just done a measurement and then some calculations and drawn some conclusions.

So if you want to talk about the physics I'll happily do that.

I thought Galileo would be a good name, but far too pretentious and egotistical.
Galileo went against the authority of god on earth and paid the price for what he'd observed through his telescope and what the calculations he made led him to conclude about the earth's place in the scheme of things - not particularly special and not put at the centre of the universe by god.

As for the Urich issue. I looked at several estimates of mass for the buildings and thought Urich's to be the best. I'm sorry if he's changed sides if that's what he's done. Ultimately it doesn't matter what mass is chosen because its a scalar that just changes the Energy scale - because we're dealing with proportions i.e. the 12 floor block is 12 times the mass of a single floor - so if a floor has a mass of a kilo the upper block has a mass of 12 kilos the only effect we'll see is in the energy scale instead of MJ we'll have Joules, (we'd have to ignore air resistance at this scale) but the shapes of the plots remain the same i.e the result is independent of the scalar mass chosen and changing the mass changes the scale and not the plot. The only reason to get the mass spot on would be if you were planning a controlled demolition or something.

Anyway I'm sorry no_body disturbed you enough to make an issue of it.
obviously I am some_body, but I remain
yours etc

Okay, no-body it is then!

Okay, no-body it is then! Thanks for explaining the rationale. My feeling of being disturbed was not that the name bothers me, but that it seemed like it could be self-deprecating, on the surface. Clearly that's not your intent, which I'm glad of!

Anyway, I'll take a look at the paper, which I haven't really gotten a chance to yet . . .



Larger Type Version Now Posted

Sorry about that.

You say real scientists already know, but you could know.
Take yourself on a crash course.
You can teach yourself the basics and the math is just + - * /.

Here are the basic ideas you need to understand.
Mass, Velocity, Acceleration, Gravity, Gravitational Potential Energy and Kinetic Energy.

I do already know - without the math

I don't need the math or the graphs to know. Here's why:

1: I can SEE that WTC7 is controlled demolition because it looks EXACTLY like controlled demolition and there are no other examples of a building collapse that looks EXACTLY like a controlled demolition that isn't one.

2: I can SEE the demoition waves and explosions preceeding the "collapses" in WTC 1 and2.

3: I can SEE the squibs many stories below the demolition waves

4: I can SEE the violent lateral ejections of heavy steel beams.

5: I can SEE the towers exploding.

5: I UNDERSTAND the CONCEPT that energy that is consumed in downward acceration is not availabe for any other use such as pulverizing concrete, shredding steel beams and expanding the dust cloud against the atmosphere and distributing pulverized building material to a depth of several inches from river to river (as testified to by Governor Pataki) etc. etc.

6: I UNDERSTAND that resistance slows things down and that massive resistance slows things down a whole lot if it doesn't stop them altogether.

In other words, I think that imagery and concepts are more easily digestable to the public than numbers and equations. HOWEVER - numbers and equations are great too - for the scientific community. Although, I can't see why anyone (including physicists and mathematicians) would have any trouble seeing the controlled demolitions simply by observation.


Fine and cool
I can SEE those things as well.. The trouble is that if NIST or any other debunkers then come along and say well those aren't squibs its dust escaping. The top is a piston in a tube and the air is all being pushed through channels blah blah blah ....

and so in the public mind another image is inserted and because the public would rather trust authority, NIST Popular Mechanics et al, so the CD image is replaced with 'rational' explanations.

So the Science NEEDS to be done. Then we can work towards the imagery. To me SEEing the graph of the fit of Model B (demolition) to the observed Energy loss was a real eye opener as was SEEing the straight line graph of velocity. The Velocity graph shows how a demolition expert can simplify the job at hand - i.e if you remove the structure then all you have to control is the mass. you know how much mass there is and you can model the distribution of mass and get an acceleration and from there to how far the block has dropped at a given time- just using a simple equation for a straight line. And if you can predict where the block will be at any given moment you can set the delays on the charges to make it look like a "progressive" collapse. So to me the straight line velocity graph is as much of an image because it lets you SEE how the perpetrators simplified the problem they faced and succeeded in demolishing the tower in full view of the planet.

Its about asserting the Authority of Science over the perceived authority of the personality or institution who's doing the Science.


"Its about asserting the Authority of Science over the perceived authority of the personality or institution who's doing the Science."


The question (as I see it) is how did "the perceived authority of the personality or institution who's doing the Science," get the upper hand over real science? The answer to this question (I believe) lies in the realm of psychology, which is both art and science. Or possibly the answer lies in the realms of religion or philosophy.

So - there are two questions:

1: What happened? And I believe you and David Chandler and Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Graeme MacQueen and others are on top of that.

2: What has to be done or said - AND TO WHOM - in order to "assert the Authority of Science over the perceived authority of the personality or institution who's doing the Science."

In any event, since your strength is in demonstrating the physics, I encourage you to keep doing what you do best - and let us hope that this work goes where it will do the most good.

The Authority of Science

Well those are some tough questions.

So yes its psychology and ideology.
In fact the military would call it "Full Spectrum Dominance" i.e. philosophy, religion, popular culture, art, fashion, academia, etc etc. all are permeated by the neo liberal/con ideology. The ideology of the free market etc etc., You know its ideology because when the financial system hits a crisis that 'ol free market is quickly forgotten.

Obabama wants to get back to real Science, so there must be a perception that a lot of Science isn't real.

NIST Science isn't real Science its PR Science (but you know that).

David Chandler did a pretty good job saying what has to be said
to whom it has to be said (as have all the names you mention) - with his question to NIST. You can really see Jon Gross as the weak link in that team. You can see the cognitive dissonance in his face when he was confronted with David Chandler's question.

Real Science speaks for itself to real Scientists. (the problem you outlined in your first comment) and makes all but the most hardened PR scientist squirm as their minds struggle to cope with their cognitive dissonance.

Thanks for taking the time to read the article and here here to your last thought.

Here's where it gets so strange

I have friends who are top notch scientists. That is, they understand and respect the scientific method and they apply the scientific method in their work. In fact, some of them teach the scientific method to graduate students. BUT --- they throw it all out the window when it comes to 9/11.

For example: I say to them: "9/11 was a mass murder and parts of the murder weapons which are in the possession of the government have serial numbers on them which would positively identify these weapons. Yet the government refuses to release these serial numbers, saying ' the identify of the planes was never in doubt.' "

Now what kind of a "scientist" would accept that? These friends of mine would never accept that from themselves in their own professional work nor would they accept it from their grad students, and yet they accept it from people who they characterise as "stupid" and "incompetent." That's what is so ironic.

Now here's my problem: I believe that it is important to retain one's friendships. These friends of mine get tired of my updating them on each new revelation on 9/11 ---- like David Chandler's work, and now your work. They can't face it. They don't want to face it. They invite me to their homes for dinner, but some of them say: "no 9/11" and with others it is simply understood that "9/11 talk" is unwelcome.

They just want life to go on "the way it was." I don't see how it will help anything for me to say: "sorry, I can't come to dinner because you limit the scope of my conversation." That won't open their eyes or their minds. On the other hand, I don't want to abandon these friendships because these people have a blind spot.

It is so straaaaaaaaaange because these friends really are top scientists in their fields.

Anyway ------ that's my little ramble this morning.

9-11 Science Dinner?

Well to me the banning from discussion of 9-11 looks like you friends already know. Its the way cognitive dissonance often manifests itself, and if they are 'top scientists' then other pressures are brought to bear - like their job security, economic and social status. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan are examples of what the price is when you just question authority.

Maybe you could invite them round for a 9-11 science dinner! That way you might find the ones who are struggling with their cognitive dissonance. If they are top scientists and Obabama wants real science maybe they could ask for a review of NIST's work to see if it is real science.

I hope this doesn't sound trite

I hope this doesn't sound trite, but the question: "What is the meaning of Life?" is central to this whole discussion. If one is an evolutionary biologist (for example) who believes that Life is all about survival and that it has no intrinsic meaning, and that we are just meaningless, random, molecular accidents that are here today and gone forever tomorrow, what would be the motivation in seeking the truth over attempting to assure one's survival as long as possible - for no reason other than that's the way the "accident" of biological life "works?"

In other words, why not align yourself with the team that's "winning" at the moment? You can always shift to the other side when some undeniable breakthrough occurs, and none of the herd will blame you - or for that matter even notice you - as the herd will shift as a mass.

On the other hand, if you believe in karma and eternal consciousness in one form or another - or in the formless state - then you are more likely to realize that there is no escaping truth.

I guess what I am rambling on about, is -----------well actually --------- I not sure what I am rambling on about. The whole thing creates a cognitive dissonance in me. It's just a different kind of cognitive dissonance that is affecting my friends.

Well Being

It is no sign of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

I think books like The Selfish Gene were part of the full spectrum dominance strategy of spreading this kind of ideology.
While of course a gene will do stuff to replicate and pass itself on how does that explain people who don't want any children - how does it explain altruism. So in some species and humanity is one of them the survival of the gene pool is more important than the survival of a single gene we are social animals - what about the first responders at ground zero putting their lives on the line to help others? - so the selfish gene is just more propaganda as is their current load of pseudo science they were pushing before the crunch hit "evolutionary economics" Darwin applied to economics. it's science that supports an ideology pure and simple. Its like a film the Nazi's put out about dung beetles fighting to the death - they were using science to push their ideology - thing is we ain't dung beetles.

Further its apparent that evolution has a direction with life arranging itself into more and more complex forms - if evolution was random then there would be no direction.

full spectrum transcendence

How about "full spectrum transcendence?" Maybe that's what all this apparent absurdity is all about.

Bring it On

The absurdity is created by one class of humans maintaining their position of power - they think that accumulating wealth will ensure the survival of their gene.
So here's to Full Spectrum Transcendence
don't worry be happy.

BBC Supression?

A poster to the Editor's blog @

Posted a link to the this article in a comment.

The comment just said CD hypothesis matches empirical data better than NIST hypothesis. that's all. the comment was deleted some time yesterday.

Comments to the BBC are moderated before they're posted So the comment must have got through the initial moderation,

Don't ya just love the BBC's "cherished impartiality"

Nice job!


I think this paper is quite powerful and should be published so it's effect is long lasting. If all of the math is correct, and it appears to me to be so, then this paper adds synergy to the other two recent works discussing the fall of the North Tower upper block, concerning why the NIST/Bazant hypothesis cannot be correct there, and that some form of assisted collapse mechanism must have been in play. Since it looks at the same set of circumstances from a different perspective (in your case the energy deficit for a natural collapse due to the energy requirements to accelerate the stories below the upper block to the velocities observed in a given time frame) and comes to the same conclusion, it makes for a powerful case when combined with the other analyses, which you wisely mention.

There are a couple of minor comments/suggestions I have:

1. There are a couple of spelling errors in the text which should be cleaned up. One is with Dr. Bazant's name. You have it as Byzant in one place. You also misspelled my name in one place, but I wouldn't take anything off of your grade for that as it is easy to do with this name. At the end of the paper you have it as Tony Szambozi and it is Szamboti.

2. There were a few comments on the thread here asking you to make it easier to read. Why did you use a narrow format? Do you believe it makes for better concentration? The font is also quite small and some readers may not realize they can enlarge the paper.

3. What does the abbreviation NB mean at the beginning of certain sentences as you don't define it when you use it the first time?

Many Thanks

I'll change the layout so that you don't have to zoom in to 300% to actually read it - this was a quick fix to an earlier problem.

I'll correct the spelling too.

NB should be N.B. or n.b. nota bene - Latin, literally note well! - observe carefully.

Is it possible to model the structural sinks in a similar way?

The structural sinks and a few more comments


I would think you could model the structural sinks the same way you modeled the inertial sinks. The only problem is that it takes a good bit of work to determine all of the column sizes, classify each column according to it's ability to develop a full plastic hinge, and determine it's buckling energy. You would then have to do that for each core column on eleven floors. The perimeter columns are easy as they are all the same on a given floor. However, now that we did it for two floors for the Missing Jolt paper, and we have the pattern down, it would go significantly faster than that did. We can talk more about this, but right now it is probably more important to get this work of yours out there.

I read the paper over again to be sure I answered your question properly and I have a few more comments/suggestions.

1. You asked for comments about your assumption that the floor masses were the same for the upper 20 stories. The only difference would be the small weight difference of the steel on each story. The steel weight seems to decrease by about 3.5% per story. However, the average steel weight of the upper 20 stories is approximately 133,000 kilograms, which is less than 10% of the total floor weight. This would give a deviation of 0.35% between stories, so your greatest deviation would be approximately 7% from the lowest to the highest story.

2. Even after enlarging the paper the graphs are hard to read and if it wouldn't be too much effort it would probably be a good idea to enlarge the font on the descriptions of the axes, the axis values, and the legends. You might also want to use a lower resolution on the Y-axis in some cases (with the same upper limits of course) as the axis on the graph seems crowded.

3. You say that you took data from each frame of the Sauret video but don't explain how you did it. Do you think it important to say? In our case, we took data every five frames or 0.167 seconds, as there are thirty frames per second. By calibrating we found that 1 pixel = 0.88 feet or .268 meters, and measurements from anything less than five frames apart did not provide reliable data.

4. I would paginate the paper and have less margin at the top and bottom when possible. Right now the large bottom margins take one's concentration away from the content, in my opinion. I understand the need to fit the figures in and keep them with the appropriate text. One thing that would keep that straight would be to label the figures and refer to them as Figure___ in the body of the text.


Thanks again for your input.

The reason the layout is so out of whack is that this document started out as an e-mail and from there to a text editor that could print to pdf's

It'll take a couple of days to sort out properly, so bare with me.

I'll post here when it's done.


Now it makes sense.

As the article really does have something important to say, it would seem to be worth the little bit of extra time to package it for readability.

I'll look forward to your update.

New Version

1.6Mb pdf from the link at the top of the page
Added brief appendix on the data plotting etc.

The graphs are now (or should be) vector graphics so should scale better.

Still to do

Enlarging Graph text and reducing scale clutter. Still one or 2 typos
and some references have disappeared.

It looks a lot better


The paper looks much better and is certainly more readable. The graph resolution is also fine now.

What you have done with creating a 3D graphic and using a graphics editor to align it is impressive. Your explanation of how you performed the measurements is more than sufficient. I meant to tell you that we used a purchased version of the original Sauret video for the measurements for the Missing Jolt paper so I would think it has as good a resolution as one can get with that film. However, we simply used a pixel measuring tool called screen calipers to measure. Not nearly as sophisticated as what you have done.

I need to ask whether you think having the note about using Gregory Urich's mass analysis right under the title is necessary. Can't it be a footnote on the first page or in the reference section? I think it detracts from the appearance of the paper unnecessarily.

There are several typos yet. When you are done I can go over it and send you a note on what they are if you don't catch them all.

OK I'm done

Can't work out why the "vector" graphics package is outputting bitmaps
So I haven't increased the size of the text on the graphs. I'm using an 'old favourite' spread sheet and it won't let me increase text size.
I could import the data to a fancy charting spread sheet but the amount of work doesn't justify the benefits IMO. I'll look into that in the future, but for now I think I'm done.

Thanks V much for all the help from everyone who's had input.

Minor Update

I noticed a glitch in the Model B distribution (some frames were being dropped) caused by an array error in the script that produced the mass distribution. The distribution was checked by summing the total mass. so there won't be much difference and might produce a better fit .
I'm working to fix it, so sorry for the delay.

I've added Appendix B to help explain the maths.
And cleared up all (i think) typos.

I'll redo the graphs that aren't affected by the Model B mass distribution error

Point 3

Is the video you used the same resolution as the one I used?

I scaled the video times 4 and saved without compression.
And scaled again inside the logging software (Tracker)

Though your initial resolution might only be 10 inches to the pixel you can increase the apparent resolution by scaling. Imagine a neural net that learnt how to recognise the roof line through all the noise, if our AI system knew about how the visual data was produced. a series of frames captured at set time intervals - and how the data compression worked etc etc. Well it turns out we have such a system in the human brain - eye to hand on mouse system.
We can determine what is an artifact and judge where our data point should be placed given the image on the screen - a way to improve the system would be to average these points over a series of runs. I haven't done this with the data - but each time I plotted the data points the results were pretty consistent a smooth curve with a constant Acceleration.

It is more difficult to place data points early in the sequence. and compression artifacts can play a role if you're not careful
As the velocity increases through the collapse this error is reduced to some extent.

I'll add a section about how we increased the resolution by using an intelligent system!

The heartening thing was the similarity with David Chandler's results which matched almost exactly and we were working independently.

You did get good results

I was just concerned that there could possibly be a weak link as you did not describe how you did the measuements. Your explanation sounds good to me and with your adding a description in the paper there won't be doubt as to your methods.

I agree that your results look good and they do agree with David Chandler's. The measurements we took for the Missing Jolt paper gave velocities which are a few percent higher than yours and his. However, in all three independent data sets there is no question that the average acceleration is between .64 and .71g and there is no deceleration whatsoever.


Tony, you very kindly said this

"I think this paper is quite powerful and should be published so it's effect is long lasting. If all of the math is correct, and it appears to me to be so, then this paper adds synergy to the other two recent works discussing the fall of the North Tower upper block, concerning why the NIST/Bazant hypothesis cannot be correct there, and that some form of assisted collapse mechanism must have been in play. Since it looks at the same set of circumstances from a different perspective (in your case the energy deficit for a natural collapse due to the energy requirements to accelerate the stories below the upper block to the velocities observed in a given time frame) and comes to the same conclusion, it makes for a powerful case when combined with the other analyses, which you wisely mention."

Do you still hold this opinion?

Yes, I do


I have been wondering what ever happened with your paper and did not initially see your last post on this thread.

I certainly believe that this paper you have put together warrants publishing.

I will ask Reprehensor to forward my e-mail address to you.

OK Great :-)

Look forward to it

Bazant debunked

It would be impossible for the top block to fall at free fall. All the columns would have to disappear simultaneously. Columns bending takes a little time.

Bazant admits that his model does NOT adequately explain the collapse of the south tower in this paragraph:

pg 13 [14 on pg counter]
The high tilt seen on the South Tower top (about 25 degrees after 4 seconds of fall, NIST 2005) would call for a three-dimensional model of progressive collapse. Why does the one dimensional model give nonetheless a reasonably good match? Probably because the crushing front of compacted debris tends to develop a flat front once it becomes thick enough (Fig. 6e). However, to answer this question fully, a three-dimensional analysis would be required.

Don't forget

to close with an </u> tag, not an <u/> ;-)

Bazant's Paper

There's quite a lot wrong with Bazant's paper. Not least of which is the way he calculates the Potential Energy which is very misleading as are his calculations which seem to be deliberately obscure and therefore difficult to follow. He even gives the impression that Newton's laws have little to do with structural engineering when in-fact the whole basis of structural engineering is founded on these fundamental Laws.
I was amazed that his paper was published in a Journal at all.

Regarding your discussion of energy

One of your passages brings out the teacher in me. In your little physics tutorial on energy you say:

"To understand this we need to take a brief detour into the physics of WORK. WORK is Force acting through a distance
A sprinter needs to move the same Mass over the same distance in every race, this takes the same Energy no matter
how quickly the race is run, so WORK is Energy (use) over time.

"To do WORK a Force must act over a distance, so if a 100 meter sprinter runs the race in 10 seconds in the heats
and runs the final in 9.5 seconds then the sprinter has used the same Energy in less time. The sprinter has used more
muscle Force to Accelerate Mass over a distance, so the Force is proportional to distance over time, this is......."

In ordinary English, the work done on a system is a scalar quantity obtained by multiplying the component of force acting on the system in the direction of motion times the distance through which the force acts. If the force is variable, you have to sum up the incremental amounts of work (i.e. integrate it). The sprinter is probably not the best illustrative example. Work is done on the sprinter by the force of traction from the track (the reaction force from the sprinter pushing horizontally against the track) only during the interval while he/she is accelerating. Once the sprinter is up to speed no more work is done (by the outside world) except to compensate for losses due to air resistance. The vast majority of the sprinter's energy reserves are going into internal processes such as pumping blood, flexing muscles, generating heat, etc. The bottom line is you picked an example that has lots of complications, brings little clarity, and is potentially misleading. A better example would be the work done against friction by sliding a crate at constant speed across a warehouse floor. In that case energy is expended proportional to the force exerted and proportional to the distance the crate is moved.

--David Chandler
(P.S. I skimmed your article briefly before. On Tony Szamboti's encouragement I am reading it more carefully again. I paused at the Work tutorial. I am liking it so far.)

Still reading through your paper...

"The maths is a little more complicated"

Aha! I've narrowed you down to someone in the British sphere of influence! ("maths" instead of the American "math")

I have lots of little comments on your paper but it would be better to do it through email rather than this kind of public forum. You can email me at

--David Chandler