Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center

[This is an updated version of the video to correct some errors in the characterization of the corner columns and to generally improve the information content. Rather than simply delete the old YouTube video I've added a link to go from it to the new one. This should cover those who have already embedded or linked to the old version. Sorry for the hassle, and thank you members of the AE911Truth team who caught the error. -- DSC]


This project began with an email from Graeme MacQueen to me describing an explosion on the NW corner of WTC1. I started looking for other such explosions and found a prominent one right at the initiation point on the 98th floor. I further noticed a corner column sticking up after the roofline had fallen past. The top of the surviving column matched the height of the corner ejection moments before. This seemed to be the event that cut the column. The column hovered and swayed for several seconds then precipitously dropped. I wondered if Graeme's explosion was the one that triggered the drop. I found a way to synchronize the videos and then was able to verify that Graeme's "puff" occurred exactly at the moment of drop of the column.

The main significant points I see in this observation are:
1) The building is doing more than just blowing smoke out the windows. The puffs we see are part of the cause of the collapse.
2) We are seeing charges that can cut through the steel corners of the buildings
3) We are seeing a specific 14" column cut by explosives in two places: one to set it loose, and one to cause it to drop.
4) The two explosions occur in a time-delayed sequence, indicative of demolition

(Tony Szamboti and my wife, Carolyn, also made observations that contributed toward this video. All are acknowledged in a credits screen before the closing logo.)

If the building fell like we were told

by the official story then there would not be seen all this material outside the building.
It would collapse like NIST tells us WTC 7 did; the inside collapsed first , leaving a hollow shell to collapse in the end. Of course a total collapse of either building could not have happened at all but consider this comparison with WTC7.

Nice movie btw. Schandler puts out great work.

Were Steel Columns Weakened To Failure By Nano-Thermite Coats?

I tend to agree with Kevin Ryan's point of view that the WTC destructions were "deceptive" demolitions - unconventional ... even non-explosive.

As reported by the Bentham paper, a paintable form of nano-thermite apparently existed circa 2001. The Merrit Harris assessment of 12/2000 recommended that major support columns within the elevator shafts of WTC 1 and 2 be immediately treated for rust, which seems to suggest the application of corrosion inhibiting materials upon the steel. A swap of corrosion inhibiting materials with such paintable nano-thermite would ensure that major supporting structures of the WTC would be entirely and discretely covered by an extreme incendiary that could be capable of destroying the weaker connecting joints of the WTC columns and weaken the columns themselves to the point of overall structural failure.

NAVSEA not only have been and are a leader in the manufacture of nano-thermite, but also steel corrosion inhibiting materials (for naval vessels and machine components). A major WTC contractor (Turner Construction) that was working throughout the WTC from the mid-90s until the very morning of 9/11, also constructed the headquarters of NAVSEA in 1997.

The recent TrueTV demonstration of the effect of just a small fraction of a steel column covered by what is allged to be a paintable form of nano-thermite was impressive. Had the column been entirely coated and loaded, failure may very well have resulted. Were the relatively small number of explosions heard at the WTC on 9/11 (insufficient to topple each structure?) the result of unintended explosive detonation of "painted" nano-thermite materials already present upon the major WTC steel upon ignition? Was any ignition simply intended to generate a simultaneous and widespread weakening of the WTC steel to the point of simultaneous failure and not explosive detonations?

You have to account for what

You have to account for what the explosives accomplished on a micro not macro level.

How was all the concrete pulverized?
Was the core collapse but offsetting the columns, cutting them and letting them slip" or blasting the connections?
Cutter or shaped charges may have been used at multiple locations in the core to push the columns off axis where they might drop down, but that would require translating all the columns and structure above and simultaneously. That's seems complex
Was the core destroyed by blasting outward from the columns at the outer row of the core, pulling the core apart and pushing the slabs outward crushing them as the were constrained by the perimeter columns? Would this require charges at each floor? If there were shaped charges placed inside the elevator shafts at the floor level through out most of the height directed at the perimeter might this produce the destruction observed? That is aside from the blow out of the floor at the crash site to initiate the appearance of a top down collapse?

Significant Release Of Potential Gravitational Energy

This phenomena (generated by the suuden onset of apparently induced tower collapses) could explain the observed lateral expulsion of major WTC exterior members and pulverization of building materials, as opposed to individual explosive devices.

It has been estimated that literally tons of the reactive red chip material discovered in the WTC dust was present within the WTC. If this much material was tuned to be destructively explosive and was in fact detonated as such within the 10-15 second period of each tower collapse, the audible evidence would be enormous.

The presence of significant WTC sub-level molten deposits (coupled with molten flows observed from WTC 2 pre-collapse) suggests the presence of a reactive mixture of WTC energetic material as opposed to a destructively explosive variety.

Were the comparitively low number of reported explosions at the WTC sufficient to explosively destroy the enormous volume occupied by the WTC supportive steel or were these audible explosions instead unintended sounds generated by the sudden ignition of potentially huge amounts of highly reactive energetic materials applied ("painted") to a vast total surface area of WTC steel?

Correction: David S. Chandler


Excellent work, thanks

I put it to use in this long running argument with troll 'debunkers' here. (Be warned before you click on that link. That forum has almost 2,000 posts, many very long-winded.)

Kudos to David Chandler

Another great piece and observations by David Chandler, he has done an incredible job of debunking the NIST WTC fantasy report(s). The related questions I would have is, would the cutting of the corner columns with demolition charges be enough to bring down the towers or would you probably also need to cut the core columns? And two, if you already cut the core columns, then would you also probably need to cut the corner columns? Between the elevator renovation work and the work on the rusting core columns, it seems like it "might" have been easier to plant the cutter charges on the core columns and a bit more difficult on the corner columns (were corner columns exposed in interiors, and who if any, were the tenants on these floors?). In any case, great job David and keep up the good work into 2010 & beyond.

Marsh & McLennan 98th Floor Tenant

My bad, how could I have forgotten it was Marsh & McLennan who occupied the 98th floor with their many connections to suspected individuals and institutions in the 9/11 attacks. In addition to the on-going elevator renovations and the work on the rusting core columns at the WTC, Marsh conducted extensive fire proofing and sprinkler system renovations in second half of 1998. Thus, I take back my comment from above (i.e., setting up cutter charges on corner columns "might" have been more difficult than core columns), given that certain leaders of Marsh had the motives and means to plant cutter charges in the corner columns, it probably would not have been that difficult for Marsh to have done so.

See Kevin Ryan’s excellent analysis on Marsh's many 9/11 connections at:

The 98th floor was occupied

The 98th floor was occupied by Marsh/ McLennan.

As the credits on the film say

it's David S. Chandler.

Great work David

Great work David Chandler!

The core might have collapsed with explosives placed in it leaving the shell - perimeter standing as it was a right tube like independent structure.

The floor slabs would then have pancaked or fallen down without the support of the core.

How would this be explained by a plane crash and some fire?

My theory is that explosives in the core did several things:

destroyed the core so it "collapsed"
crushed the floor slabs by forcing them into the confining perimeter tube column panels.
dislodging and displacing the perimeter in massive sections which dropped down or fell over with little horizontal force

Aside from some cutter charges as Chandler shows, most of the action was in the core. except for the initiation of the illusion at the level of the crashes.

Outstanding work..

Dave's video's are always well done and straight forward. How these don't go viral on the internet is incomprehensible to me.

There is so much evidence. Just looking at this particular view in this video, you can see the blasts coming out from under the canopy of debris. Additionally, there's a nice neat straight line of smoke and fire plumes coming out right at the fire line below almost immediately after the first big plumes of ejections come out above it.

Not entirely related to this video, I came across this picture a few months ago. I had ordered Kevin Ryan's DVD entitled "Bush Science: A New Standard for Deception" and coupled with that video was Dr. Jones presentation at UVSC Feb. 2006. Around the 46 minute mark of Professor Jones' presentation he is showing a large picture of the prominent squib jetting from the North Tower. The camera operator had zoomed in on this picture of the squib. For some reason, the close-up shot is not in the online version. Prof Jones off handedly requests a close-up to see if a steel girder can be seen being thrown and yes, you can see it. Quite easily in fact. Here was the shot the camera operator took. I got a screen shot of it and I made an arrow in a 2nd screen shot to point it out on the right side below the debris cloud.

Ejected Beam-1

Ejected steel girder - 2

I wonder if the source video for this picture can be enlarged and ran to see if we can determine the direction of that object. It certainly appears to be a steel girder being ejected right out of the side of the building. No "puff of air" can do that.

Peace all

"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear."
- Douglas MacArthur

The puff of smoke or dust

The puff of smoke or dust appears to be perpendicular to the west face no perpendicular to the bevel. The bevel contains to columns and the ejecta appears to be coming from south of the south west column. This may a cutting charge placed at the spandrel connection.

To disengage the bevel columns would require cutting the top two connections to the bevel column above and the spandrel connections to the west and north faces.

For the bevel to remain and a multi story unit (it was made up of 3 story sections) all the sprandrel connections would have to be broken. One needs to consult the constriction plans to see how the spandrels were joined to the facade assemblies. It's likely that they were bolted together with plates over the connections.

Why not viral?

dtg86 comments:
"How these don't go viral on the internet is incomprehensible to me."

It is interesting to me that the two videos I did that got the most hits by far are "South Tower Coming Down" (236,700 hits on the DavidSChandler YouTube channel) and "North Tower Exploding" (132,400 hits on the AE911Truth channel). Both of these are simply narrated infinite loop views of the explosive destruction happening.

The next most popular is the drama with Shyam Sunder and John Gross in the "WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall" series (75,350 hits for the first episode).

The analysis videos max out with "WTC7 in Freefall--No Longer Controversial" (28,480 hits) with several others in the 10,000 to 20,000 range.

The message I take away from this is:
1. The explosive demolitions really speak volumes (especially when narrated), and for the masses they are probably more persuasive than all the analysis in the world.
2. Personal drama also rates higher than analysis, even when the subject matter is technical.
3. Analysis comes in last with the masses, which is why my physics classes are smaller than, say, P.E.

The analysis is what feeds me, and probably many of you who are technically oriented. It's also what is most meaningful to the kinds of people whose technical credentials give them credibility with the public. That's why I'm plugged into AE911Truth. That's also why more people have seen Loose Change than Blueprint for Truth.

What that tells me is that occasionally it's good to come out and simply speak the truth, JREFers be damned, informed by analysis but not necessarily displaying the analysis right up front.

--David Chandler

A simple thought experiment also proves

the buildings must have been demolished with explosives.

It involves the motion of free falling bodies, and Isaac Newton's three laws of gravity.

Imagine each floor of the buildings suspended in mid air, without any columnar support, floors just hovering.

If they were dropped, in absolute free fall, with each successive floor commensing free fall acceleration when contacted by the floor above, it would take close to 100 seconds for the entire series of "pancaked" floors to reach the ground. Add to this the fact that the buildings were constructed around steel columns which were overengineered to uphold the structure at all levels, from bottom to top within the context of the precept that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and it can be deduced that any natural pancake "collapse" would be utterly impossible, especially in the alotted timeframe of 12-14 seconds, where absolute free fall in nothing but air alone from the height of the towers, would be about 10 seconds.

Now the debunkers try to step in and say one, that's not free fall but only a percentage of free fall, and two, that falling momentum overcame structural resistence, making it vanish under the smashing "compaction" of building mass falling from a height - but falling from what height, and what was falling, and onto what was it falling? Once initiated, the top part of the building explodes and disintegrates, explosively ejecting the bulk of building material, and leaving little more than mere ATMOSPHERE above the entire remaining length of structure, and yet, there was no loss of momentum, ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND. In other words the buildings BLEW UP, from the top down - they did not "collapse" at all, that's not what actually occured, and there is NOTHING in the official story which addresses the actual occurance of the destruction of the buildings, NIST and FEMA offering only a collapse INITATION hypothesis only, saying that what ensued thereafter was automatic and inevitable "as seen in the videos" - this is absurd! A blatant cover up, of something that is, on the very face of it, self evident - namely that the buildings were BLOWN UP and did not in fact collapse as a sole result of the plane strikes and fires, which obviously served as the fake Occam's Razor ruse as to the cause, and there's the rub, and so the debunker or the sceptic will say "but we all SAW the buildings hit by the planes" as if that alone ought to be a sufficient explanation. What a disgrace!
On the 11th day, of every month.

A good means to pre-empt attempt to muddy the water

The fact that the 'collapse' of each of the twin towers was at less than absolute free fall has been used to muddy the waters by 'debunkers' I have confronted, as they do with any observation that deviates in the slightest from what is conceptually black and white (another example being the small drop in the north eastern corner of WTC 7 observed before free fall as can be seen in this long forum, also mentioned above --- let me know if anyone needs further help finding what I am referring to).

I think it would be worthwhile if this were to be fully calculated, taking into account:

1. the gap between each floor;
2. the thickness of each floor;
3. the mass of each floor; and
4. the cumulative momentum of the falling 'pancaked' floors.

If this were done it would make such muddying of the water impossible.


Also, 'debunkers' are in the practice of implying that the falling concrete floors would have been shattered to dust by the fall.

So to exactly extent would we expect each concrete floor to have remained intact or conversely been broken up by having fallen those distances?

From how high would the concrete floors needed to have fallen to have been shattered to dust?:

1. The full height of the Twin Towers?
2. 1 kilometre?
3. 10 kilometres?
4. 100 kilometres?
5. 10000 kilometres?

Interesting finds.

When I hear David Chandler's voice, I know it is going to be solid science. Thank you David.

thank you

wonderful. The seamless re-running of initiation is critical visual deprogramming. The sudden fall has always allowed the 'hammer blow' scenario to have purchase in our unknowing minds. Thats where our eyes go when watching it. to the roof line . The ability to watch it over and over in fluid stream allows us to see for the first real time the upper mass disintergrating BEFORE sequence begins to explode beneath it....then pop pop pop all the way down.
This is key to breakthru thinking. To realize there was no hammer. there was no solid upper block able to 'crush' the structure below it. . It was gone in the first second of BOOM .

That was excellent analysis.

That was excellent analysis.

It is time that Gage, Chandler and co. get together and develop a documentary in the manner seen in the clip shown.
I would hope that it would cover and review elementary Newtonian physics as well as the science of destruction.

Chandler's take and thoroughness is a breath of fresh air and demands further exposure and expansion upon.

One other thing...I followed

One other thing...I followed the YouTube link out of curiosity and found that the narration was removed in favor of some generic new age type music...any reason why I wonder?

I also noticed some content missing in "This Video Has Been Updated"...

This is what it should look like:

Revised Version

It's 2:40 AM PST! I made an update to correct some errors in the characterization of the corner columns and to boost the information content. You caught my update in transition. That means you're up as late as I am...later if you're in a time zone farther east! Rather than just take the old version down I've put a link from the old version to the new one.