South Tower Smoking Guns (Follow-up)

Near the end of the video I posted yesterday I pointed out a projectile that changed directions midair while trailing white smoke. After finding that projectile, I looked for it in other videos of the WTC2 collapse. I found a video from a similar point of view to the first (and Nate found me a high-res version of it), except in this video the trail can be followed all the way to the bottom of the collapse. This follow-up video explores the significance of this find.

The Perpetrators

It seems like we've gotten to the point where the perpetrators could hold a press conference and admit their guilt but instead of being hauled off by Federal Marshals would be offered book deals, dream jobs at corporations or become network pundits.

Very interesting, but I am

Very interesting, but I am not 100% sure that the projectile didn't collide with another falling object. It looks to me like another piece of falling material hits the smoking projectile on top, and sends it on it's violent downward trajectory. I am just getting that impression from looking at it with the naked eye, so I could be wrong. It's also very strange how the smoking object changes it's course so violently. If it did collide with another falling piece of debris, one would think it would have it's trajectory deflected, and not knocked completely off to it's right like an errant bottle rocket. The verdict is still out on this one for me.

One thing I never thought about before this video, is how in the world could smoke trail from falling metal or concrete in the first place? The only way smoke can trail from an object is if that object is burning. Smoke does not cling to objects! Of course the James Randi groupies will claim that it is not smoke, but pulverized concrete dust, which raise another question: what was causing the concrete to pulverize as the pieces were falling to the ground, if it was in fact pulverized concrete dust?

And it is odd how certain falling pieces fall towards the street markedly faster than the "mushroom cloud" of falling debris above. They look almost like bottle rockets shooting downward instead of up.

I tested for collision: NO COLLISION

I tested for collision in several ways.
--I tracked the movement of the particle seen above the object in question and moving downward. It continues in linear motion before and after any potential collision.
--You can notice, if you look, that there is "daylight" between the objects at the point where the turn is initiated.
--The object in question is visible in my newest video (South Tower: Exploding Projectiles) near the center of the frame. It appears to be a collection of beam segments. It appears to come unhinged, and a piece seems to be ejected, after it starts moving downward, although the events are hard to decode from this perspective. The object seen in the other video seems to be the beam above and to the right from the assembly. It would be in approximate line of sight, but nowhere near a collision.

Excellent analysis!

I hope the facts uncovered in this presentation make their way into the new Loose Change documentary.

Well, in close-up, slow-motion, it's less anomalous

If you look at about :55 into the video, you can see that something is headed downwards, seemingly in a collision course with the 'right-angle' ejecta. If there's a collision, and it's much less massive than what hit it, neither the direction nor acceleration should surprise anybody.

So, can we determine whether there was, indeed a collision? No, not from this video. Furthermore, we don't know the relative momentums were of debris that may have collided.

Good point

This needs consideration.

"it's much less massive than what hit it"

I don't understand what you mean by that, thouh.

Probably means that

The thing heading downwards in a collision course with the right angle ejecta looks smaller but if it had more mass than the right angle ejecta thingy then it could account for the change in direction.

It didn't get hit

It didn't get hit. I don't know how to upload an image here, but I did a frame-by-frame analysis and there is significant space between the two objects (in terms of line of sight) at the point the sharp turn occurs. Furthermore, I did an x-y plot for both objects. The "rocket" projectile undergoes a definite change of direction, of course. The other object maintains constant linear motion for the same interval. If there had been a collision both objects would have had to change their momentum. Note that the visibility of the other object is variable as it tumbles, but it is visible as it continues on by well after the supposed "collision."

That was quick.

I was expecting the follow-up video in 3 to 4 weeks not the next day. Regardless, is there any way to calculate or at least estimate how much faster the projectile descends compared 1G? From my crude observation it looks somewhat higher.

Most Compelling

I like that you referenced the nano-thermite paper to establish the scientific foundation for the explosives. Yes, this projectile is considerably out and away from other debris when it changes its course. It doesn't appear to have collided with anything.

I've often tried to distinguish the smoke from the pulverized concrete clouds: smoke is darker and rising whereas the pulverized concrete is more cauliflower looking and falling. Now we can also distinguish a 'new smoke' from reacting nano-thermite.

Collision or not?

"It doesn't appear to have collided with anything."

Note the observation of metamars above.

Nano-thermite in Action

Thank you David Chandler. This 3 minute video is all one should really need to be convinced. I think the title of the video, or at least the subtitle, should be 'Nano-thermite in action!'


Any flash or glow by thermite reaction is visible?

I wonder why neither flash nor glow is visible if the right-angle direction change was due to midair ignition of (nano-)thermite, though I agree that the direction change doesn't appear due to a collision with another object. In addition, do a number of the downward moving objects trailing thick white smoke on this side of the Tower emit any light due to very high temperatures by thermite reactions, especially in the beginning when they were in the shadow of the smoke cloud?
The numerous white spots blinking in the smoke cloud could possibly be regarded as flashes by thermite reactions, but I'm not convinced that they are really not small lumps of smoke (from unknown causes) or reflected daylight on the broken window pieces. I want to know how the significant amount of the "red/gray" nano-thermite applied to girders or something actually look when ignited in the daylight condition.

Excellent, that is powerful.

Thank you for your efforts!


This video is being "discussed" on JREF

The object is in motion and

The object is in motion and that motion changes instantly without an obvious collision at a near 90 degree angle.JREF are not debunking David Chandler with their pseudo scientific claptrap they are trashing Sir Isaac Newtons entire lifes work.Only collision with another object can explain this occurrence,if there was no collision the object did indeed have its own internal energy.This can be classed as yet another anomoly of the day.

Maybe the object acted in this way because Hani Hanjour was piloting it,just a thought.

re South Tower Smoking Guns

Thanks for the great work. I will add that the fact that the explosive could be painted onto the girders/beams can be added to a response to the familiar "but there's no way they could keep it a secret" shibboleth. If the explosive could be painted on, there would be no need for those doing the painting to have any idea they were doing anything other than ordinary maintenance. Admittedly, there would still be the need to install triggers...

Aluminum oxide particles from thermite reactions were detected?

The aluminum oxide smoke or ash particles from thermite reactions were already detected or can be detected in the WTC dust samples? I think they are, if detected, another definete evidence that thermite reaction actually occurred (on the projectiles trailing white streamers, for example), together with the iron-rich microspheres.
I don't know the sizes and characteristics of aluminum oxide particles from thermite reaction, but I suppose it's not easy to detect them because they can more easily float and be scattered in the air than pulvelized concrete and iron-rich microspehres. I'm not sure about the other sources of aluminum oxide particles, either.

"Environmental anomalies" paper by Ryan, Gourley, and Jones

already referred to aluminum oxide in dust samples, but it seems it has not yet been detected. I'm sorry I have overlooked it.

"Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials"
page 7

> Further testing of this hypothesis, for the presence of
> energetic materials at GZ, might focus on dust samples. For
> example, if aluminothermic mixtures were ignited at the
> WTC, significant quantities of the oxidized aluminum
> would have been present in the air and dust. Because EPA
> and Cahill used elemental analyses only, the fraction of
> aluminum present as aluminum oxide was not identified.
> Unfortunately, air samples are not likely to be useful at this
> late date but specific measurement of aluminum oxide in
> dust samples can certainly be done. Such measurements
> may also help to explain other anomalies observed at the
> WTC, such as the plumes of white ash accompanying very
> bright flames at the South Tower just before its fall (Jones
> et al. 2008b).

Aluminum particles

The particles Professors Harrit and Jones photographed with an electron microscope were 1/1000th the width of a human hair. They are created by heating aluminum to the point where it becomes a gas and then freeze drying it suddenly. This can only be done in a very high tech lab. There is NO possibility that particles this small could be created any other way. [someone correct me if I am wrong]

Wouldn't there,

in a purely gravitational collapse without explosive or other lateral forces, be little difference in the trajectories of all the falling material? The near-gravity acceleration of the mass along with the near-absence of resistance from the structure would have largely prevented bouncing of debris from the remaining structure, would it not?

Is your school district giving you a hard time?

Are you actively teaching in a public school? Is your school district giving you a hard time? If not, then they deserve high praise.

Here's an analogy I made up: Two bears are on the top of a 100 foot tree. There are 100 branches growing out of one side of the tree, but no braches on the other side. The two bears weigh the same. They both jump off the tree. One bear hits no branches at all, while the other bear crashes through 100 branches. If the bears hit the ground at the same time, the branches have been sawn through almost all the way, or there are termites in every branch.

York work is an inspiration.



while watching this vid noticed a significant size lump ejected to west side (left) of towers at very high speed ... hard to imagine how gravity could fling steel columns? laterally with such force

Could a micro wave canon like the THEL ignite particles invideo?

Herblay FRANCE

bonjour ,
thanks very much for this video and explanations.

Despite hours of searching on the internet, I have not found out how the nanothermite was ignited. What wiring, téléphone détonantion etc was used. I am starting to have an idea of my own.

If the nanothermite was "painted" on as insulation to the core of the tower, could a micro wave canon like the THEL (Tactical High Energy Laser )
supply the necessary heat to amorce the ignition of these particules as seen in the video ?



PS do not forget this 11th of September 2009 to be in the street one way or another to show that you are a 911 truther and that you want a new international investigation into 911. Follow the link below for ideas on how you can do it !!