Quarter Century Study of Perception and Portrayal of the Twin Towers Collapse Modes



There is direct proof that the actual Twin Towers collapse modes have been successfully removed from public, academic and professional consciousness and have been replaced by cartoonish abstractions.

Common binary default modes of beliefs on the Twin Towers collapses have become firmly entrenched and normalized in popular and professional culture a quarter century after the collapses for 2 key reasons:

1) A lack of independent efforts to verify or refute claims

2) Total passive deference to technical authority to the point of complete 'surrender' (which is the kiss of death to Twin Towers independent research and inquiry).


At the logical heart of the dominant belief system is a binary ('truther' vs 'debunker') where the term 'truther' is promoted and perceived as an artificially narrowed binary (as Dr Jones, Richard Gage vs Dr Wood, Dr Fetzer) and exclusion of all else by default.

This triple steering of the Twin Towers collapse narrative by using sets of binaries (as NIST-Dr Bazant vs Dr Jones-Richard Gage vs Dr Wood-Dr Fetzer) is now firmly entrenched in popular culture and 'locked in place'.

The weakness of the triple narrative can be fact-checked through a 2 step process:

1) Construct accurate reconstructions and mappings of collapse features through primary research (already done on this website).

2) Use mappings as toolsets to directly verify or refute all claims.




HOW 'TRUTHERS' PERCEIVE AND PORTRAY THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSE MODES A QUARTER CENTURY AFTER THE COLLAPSES



The 'Turning the Tide: 9/11 Justice 25 Years Later' 4 day conference provides an excellent opportunity to document how the Twin Towers collapses are perceived and portrayed to the public a quarter century after the collapses.



The central underlying message throughout the conference was simple:
The general public has not been told the truth about what happened on September 11, 2001. .

The general public deserves to know the truth.
This is a message that many people can support.

But how was the conference actually arranged?



All 48 conference speakers are listed below. 46 speakers deferred all technical knowledge of the Twin Towers collapses to 2 keynote speakers (marked in yellow).





The statements of all 48 speakers are available on youtube at the following links.

Turning the Tide: 9/11 Justice 25 Years Later — Day 1:                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf524Jc6PN0

Turning the Tide: 9/11 Justice 25 Years Later — Day 2 afternoon:    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgeWrEmK7lY

Turning the Tide: 9/11 Justice 25 Years Later — Day 2 evening:       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_bB5IAKQ-E

Turning the Tide: 9/11 Justice 25 Years Later — Day 3 morning:      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWNqSEj9uVU

Turning the Tide: 9/11 Justice 25 Years Later — Day 3 afternoon:    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyPNFdp97Uk

Turning the Tide: 9/11 Justice 25 Years Later — Day 3 evening:       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yub6P7PZKls

Turning the Tide: 9/11 Justice 25 Years Later — Day 4:                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hMWaXkJpqY





HOW INDEPENDENT MEDIA ALLIANCE PANEL PARTICIPANTS PERCEIVE AND PORTRAY THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSE PROGRESSION MECHANISMS A QUARTER CENTURY AFTER THE COLLAPSES


I am using the Independent Media Alliance 9/11/2001 25th anniversary discussion (along with the Turning the Tide conference) as a fair representative sample of how the Twin Towers collapse modes are perceived and portrayed a quarter century after the collapses from a 'truther' perspective because:

The following 3 links provide a representative sample of expressed opinions related to the IMA panel discussion:

Submission of questions for an IMA panel:                https://off-guardian.org/2026/09/05/9-11-25th-anniversary-panel-submit-your-questions/

The IMA panel discussion:                                         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzR_qkfNgOY

Comment section during the discussion:                     https://off-guardian.org/2026/09/11/livestream-9-11-25th-anniversary-qa/



The following video and comment thread later appeared (probably in response to complaints of bias against Dr Wood and DEW against the IMA panel):

Investigating the DEW hypothesis:                             https://off-guardian.org/2026/09/26/investigating-the-dew-hypothesis-judy-wood-interviewed-sep-19-2026/




The terms 'truther' (as contrasted with the term 'debunker' or 'official story') is perceived and portrayed by default as those who defer technical knowledge to either Dr Jones-Richard Gage or Dr Wood-Dr Fetzer with no other options worth considering. The narrow range of choices is shown graphically below.





Drawn as a graphic one can easily spot that the meaning of the term 'truther' is limited to include only those who defer all judgement on the Twin Towers collapses to only 2 choices: (1) Dr Jones-Richard Gage or (2) Dr Wood-Dr Fetzer.



This triple steering (of human perception) of the Twin Towers collapse narrative by using sets of binaries (as NIST-Dr Bazant versus Dr Jones-Richard Gage versus Dr Wood-Dr Fetzer) is firmly locked in place and simply assumed by default in the IMA panel discussion, submission of questions before the live panel, choice of questions and follow-up thread on DEW (viewable at the 4 links provided).

This set of default shared assumptions is practically identical to those expressed at the Turning the Tide conference. If debunker, you are always a NIST-Dr Bazant debunker. If 'truther' you must be a Dr Jones-Richard Gage truther or a Dr Wood-DEW truther, there being no other valid choice.




WHY DEFERRING JUDGMENT TO A TECHNICAL AUTHORITY IS THE KISS OF DEATH TO CRITICAL THINKING (CONCERNING THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSES)



In the 10 examples below I present pairs graphics, one 'debunker' and one 'truther' contrasting claim side by side. This is the way they are presented to the public: as contrasting binary "either-or" choices.

The public is told to choose between 'official story' ('debunker') or 'truther'. The term 'truther' (by default) is taken to mean those who defer judgment to the technical authorities of either (1) Dr-Jones-Richard Gage or (2) Dr Wood-DEW, there being no other choice.



EXAMPLE #1: ('debunker') "crush down, then crush up" with an "upper block" versus ('truther') evidence of falling perimeter beam sections under rocket propulsion forces






"Debunker claims the Twin Towers "crushed down, then crushed up" by an "upper block". 'Truther' claims actual rocket-boosting energy sources on objects are necessary to explain horizontal velocity components of observed motion of objects.

EXAMPLE #2: ('debunker') "crush down, then crush up" with an "upper block" versus ('truther') gravity is vertical so GAME OVER!



Here 'debunker' uses the same "crush down, then crush up" graphic as shown in Example #1 (on left). 'Truther' uses the sequence of 7 graphics shown below (from left to right) to prove gravity is vertical so GAME OVER!




'Debunker' again claims the Twin Towers "crushed down, then crushed up" by an "upper block". 'Truther' (Harrit) places his argument as a series of 7 graphics shown above. There can be no doubt: There is no earthly exlanation for lateral motion of perimeter columns as witnessed without (1) rocket propulsion or (2) explosive internal energy on the scale of a volcanic eruption.

EXAMPLE #3: ('debunker') "crush down, then crush up" by an "upper block" versus ('truther') direct comparison of the North Tower with an erupting volcano based on key shared physical characteristics






'Debunker' again claims the Twin Towers "crushed down, then crushed up" by an "upper block". 'Truther' claims key physical characteristics of volcanic eruptions match those of the Twin Towers collapses. What are those 'key physical characteristics'? They are (1) leading projectile trajectory (as upward and outward or as lateral) and (2) particulate appearance and flow (also as upward and outward or as lateral).

EXAMPLE #4: ('debunker') "crush down, then crush up" by an "upper block" versus ('truther') direct comparison of North Tower with the 2009 Tongan Sea volcanic eruption based on key shared physical characteristics






'Debunker' claims the Twin Towers "crushed down, then crushed up" by an "upper block". 'Truther' claims the 2009 Tongan Sea eruption has key shared physical characteristics common to the key physical characteristics of the Twin Towers collapses. This clearly implies the actual internal physics of the Tongan Sea eruption at the time of the photo can be profitably projected onto the internal physics of the Twin Towers collapse progressions.

EXAMPLE #5: ('debunker') "crush down, then crush up" by an "upper block" versus ('truther') photoshopped image






'Debunker' again claims the Twin Towers "crushed down, then crushed up" by an "upper block". 'Truther' Dr Steven Jones used this photoshopped image as his lead image in his October, 2005 47 page document "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" which formed the very first technical document of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justics and the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

EXAMPLE #6: ('debunker') "crush down, then crush up" by an "upper block" versus ('truther') oxy-lance cut made well into clean-up presented by Dr Steven Jones as a thermite cut and which Alex Jones referred to as "bombshell evidence" in early 2006






'Debunker' claims the Twin Towers "crushed down, then crushed up" by an "upper block". 'Truther' Dr Steven Jones claims this image of an oxy-lance cut made by workers well into the clean-up process is conclusive evidence of angle-cut columns by thermite.

EXAMPLE #7: ('debunker') "crush down, then crush up" by an "upper block" versus ('truther') set of 5 images (including the ones in Examples #5-6) serve as key evidence of claims in seminal technical document of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Journal of 9/11 Studies






'Debunker' again claims the Twin Towers "crushed down, then crushed up" by an "upper block". 'Truther' Steven Jones claims these 5 images from his October 2005 47 page paper is direct "smoking gun" evidence of thermite/thermate action in the Twin Towers rubble.

EXAMPLE #8: ('debunker') "crush down, then crush up" by an "upper block" versus ('truther') demonstration with cardboard boxes proves why the Twin Towers 'lower blocks' were intentionally demolished at free-fall acceleration (or greater)






'Debunker' claims the Twin Towers "crushed down, then crushed up" by an "upper block". 'Truther' claims his demonstratioon on the show Hardfire using cardboard boxes proves why the Twin Towers were blown up at free-fall acceleration.

EXAMPLE #9: ('debunker') "crush down, then crush up" by an "upper block" versus ('truther') Dr Wood's claim that the Twin Towers did not collapse at all. They were dustified with DEWs






'Debunker' claims the Twin Towers "crushed down, then crushed up" by an "upper block". 'Truther' claims the Twin Towers never actually collapsed. What people perceive as collapsing buildings is actually the effects of a DEW weapon which literally "dustifies" the steel and concrete together from top to bottom (to create the illusion of collapsing buildings).

EXAMPLE #10: ('truther' Gage) direct comparison of North Tower with Tongan Sea volcanic eruption based on shared physical characteristics versus ('truther' Dr Wood) the Twin Towers did not collapse at all. They were dustified with DEWs






In this example the 2 top technical authorities among 'truthers' (and only 2 acknowledged to exist or matter) argue against each other. 'Truther' Dr Wood claims the Twin Towers never actually collapsed. Concrete and steel was literally "dustified" by a DEW weapon before our eyes.



Later in this essay both 'debunker' and 'truther' claims are fact-checked for each of the 10 examples. By doing so it is demonstrated that each of the 10 examples provide an artificially narrowed and deceptive false choice to the public.

All 10 examples above show how the public is presented with pairs of artificially narrowed false choices to choose one or the other.

The 10 pairs of graphics are placed side by side to show the viewer that you do not have to choose either one cartoon-like misrepresentation of the Twin Towers collapse progression mechanisms or the other cartoon-like misrepresentation in any of the 10 examples.





HOW 'DEBUNKERS' PERCEIVE AND PORTRAY THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSE MODES A QUARTER CENTURY AFTER THE COLLAPSES



The 'debunker' graphic in all examples cited above shows the Twin Towers "crushing down, then crushing up" by an "upper block". This cartoon of the Twin Towers collapses was most actively promoted by the James Randi Educational Foundation through their forum promotion of "Gravysites".

Beginning May, 2026 I started a thread called "Locating the roots of the official Twin Towers philosophy" in the former JREF forum, now called the International Skeptics Forum to record their current perceptions of the Twin Towers collapse progression model that the James Randi Educational Foundation promoted so vigorously. The thread is highlighted below:





Note that the thread "Gravysites" has been pinned to the top of this forum since 2007.

The thread was set up to record and preserve representative responses in the International Skeptics Forum (formerly the JREF forum) to the following key questions:

1) Can you locate the written "official story" of the Twin Towers collapse progressions?

2) What is the current official explanation for the Twin Towers collapse progression mechanisms?

3) What is the relation between the JREF forum and later the International Skeptics Forum and the official Twin Towers collapse progression model?

4) Is the current official story of the Twin Towers collapse progressions real? Does it reflect the actual Twin Towers collapse progression mechanisms?

5) Is there any intention for the International Skeptics Forum to update the pinned links titled "Gravysites" to reflect a non-cartoon version of the Twin Towers collapse progression mechanisms for the general viewing public?

6) Why don't people simply fix their mistakes and move on?


The thread responses (linked below) can act as a fair representative sample of how the Twin Towers collapse modes are perceived and portrayed a quarter century after the collapses from a 'debunker' perspective:

https://internationalskeptics.com/forums/threads/locating-the-roots-of-official-twin-towers-philosophy.380092/

An image of the top of the homepage "Gravysites" (pinned to the top of this forum since 2007) is shown below:







Dr Bazant's conception of the Twin Towers collapses is once again shown in the graphic below:





I also provided a link to the following videos (and more) to help International Skeptics Forum viewers locate the 'official story' of the Twin Towers collapse progression mechanisms that the James Randi Educational Foundation was so instrumental in promoting:

03 The official Twin Towers collapse progression mechanisms.mp4

13 The kill switch in action- NASA Engineer Ryan Mackey on Twin Towers collapse progression mechanisms 2009.mp4



When I attempted to raise the following questions about the central role of the JREF forum and Mark Roberts to forum viewers my posts were removed:

1) Is the promotion of the Twin Towers "crush down, then crush up" by and "upper block" model a intentional lie or a mistake?

2) Was the Twin Towers "upper block" model deliberately placed in the public record (using JREF resources) to deceive the general public?

3) Did any part of the JREF deliberately use covert means to place a false conception of the Twin Towers collapse progression mechanisms in the public record and then actively maintain the false conception in the public record for decades?

4) Are the actions of the James Randi Educational Foundation research driven or agenda driven conerning the Twin Towers collapse progression mechanisms?


Normally when a post is removed it is placed in another thread for that purpose, still visible to forum readers. In this case the posts with the questions were deleted from the forum entirely. The moderator accused me of lying (by raising these questions) and claimed they would not allow me to lie on the forum (by raising these questions to forum members). I also raised the following questions concerning Mark Roberts (which were removed from the forum).

1) How did Mark Roberts, without any kind of an education in the physical sciences or engineering, become the JREF public spokesman of authority and how did Gravysites become the key reference source concerning the Twin Towers collapses on the JREF forum and later in the International Skeptics Forum and on the show Hardfire?

2) Did Mark Roberts get led into making an honest mistake?

3) Did Mark Roberts knowingly intend to deceive the public by helping to place the "crush down, then crush up" by an "upper block" cartoon in the historic written record?

4) Are the actions of Mark Roberts research driven or agenda driven?


I then prepared the following video clips which explain the history of the JREF forum and later the International Skeptics Forum, Mark Roberts and NASA engineer Ryan Mackey in promoting the "crush down, then crush up" by and "upper block" cartoon model of the Twin Towers collapse progressions. After less than 30 posts in the thread I was kicked out of the forum just before posting the video links for International Skeptics Forum viewers:

10 The kill switch in action- Covert action under cover of skeptics movement.mp4

11 The kill switch in action- Skeptics networks agenda driven censorship of Wikipedia.mp4

12 The kill switch in action- Covert action under cover of equations and scientific jargon.mp4




The thread titled "Locating the roots of the official Twin Towers collapse philosophy" provides evidence that:
This is true despite:


While 'truthers' had a 4 day conference on the 25th anniversary of the 9/11/2001 attacks, nobody currently at the International Skeptics Forum had any information on what happened to Mark Roberts or anything about his work history or educational background.

No International Skeptics Forum participants could figure out how the Twin Towers collapses came to be described as "crushing down, then crushing up" by an "upper block" in Wikipedia for the last 19 years or why this has anything to do with the James Randi Educational Foundation or Mark Roberts.







HOW INDEPENDENT MEDIA AND INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS PASSIVELY DEFER JUDGMENT TO ONE OF 3 TECHNICAL AUTHORITIES BY DEFAULT (ON THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSE MECHANISMS)



A quarter century of written records can be used to prove that independent media and investigative journalists consistently defer technical knowledge of the Twin Towers collapses to one of 3 perceived technical authorities with passive acceptance. The 3 perceived technical authorities are: (1) NIST-Dr Bazant, (2) Dr Jones-Richard Gage, (3) Dr Wood-DEW.

A short sample list of current and former independent media writers and editors is used below to demonstrate how each independent writer/editor (almost without exception) passively defers by default to one of 3 perceived technical authorities (on the Twin Towers collapses).



The names are color coded. White means they passively defer to the NIST-Dr Bazant narrative of the Twin Towers collapses, yellow means they passively defer to the Dr Jones-Richard Gage narrative, and green means they defer to the Dr Wood-DEW narrative (blue is unsure).

The list can be expanded to include: Ron Unz, Chris Hedges, Julian Assange, the Independent Media Alliance panel participants and all IMA menbers, Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, Candice Owens (or whoever you want without limit).



In the case of Robert Parry, founder of Consortium News, he defaulted to the technical authority of the NIST. There is no evidence Robert Parry ever knew that he passively supported the cartoon claim that the Twin Towers "crushed down, then crushed up" by an "upper block" or that Parry knew the NIST completely avoided the the Twin Towers collapse progression mechanism in their 10,000+ page report on the subject.

In the case of Alexander Cockburn, founder of Counterpunch Magazine, he also defaulted to the technical authority of the NIST-Dr Bazant, also without any evidence he was aware he supported the cartoon collapse progression mechanism model.

The case of Noam Chomsky is identical. Chomsky passively defaulted to the Twin Towers "crush down, then crush up" by an "upper block" model without being aware of what he was supporting and, like Cockburn, publicly berated anyone who did not passively defer to the technical authority of NIST-Dr Bazant.

The case of James Corbett is different. Unlike Parry, Chomsky and Cockburn, Corbett has a 'truther' perspective. An excellent example of the research of James Corbett is his 4.5 hour documentary on the origins of Al Qaida. But he passively defers all technical knowledge of the Twin Towers collapses to Dr Jones-Richard Gage.

The case of Whitney Webb is unclear. I haven't found evidence of passive deference to the technical authority of either (1) NIST-Dr Bazant or (2) Dr Jones-Richard Gage or (3) Dr Wood-DEW on Whitney's website (unlimitedhangout.com). Watch out for false 'truther' vs 'debunker' binaries (Examples #1-10) and passive deference to any technical authority (including 'truther') concerning the Twin Tower collapses, Whitney! (wink)

The case of Catherine Austin Fitts appears to be deference to the technical authority of Dr Wood and DEW if judging by her website at solari.com.

The case of Ron Unz is most probably passive deference to the technical authority of Dr Jones-Richard Gage.

The case of Chris Hedges is passive deference to the technical authority of the NIST-Dr Bazant.

The case of Julian Assange is unclear but seems to be one of passive deference to the technical authority of the NIST-Dr Bazant.

The case of all Independent Media Alliance members seems to be one of passive deference to the technical authority of Dr Jones-Richard Gage with the exception of Catherine Austin Fitts (and maybe others?).

The case of Alex Jones is unquestioning passive deference to the technical authority of Dr Jones-Richard Gage.



By default the Twin Towers collapse narrative has come to be perceived and portrayed as either through (1) NIST-Dr Bazant or through (2) Dr Jones-Richard Gage or through (3) Dr Wood-Dr Fetzer (with all other possibilities treated as if they don't exist or don't matter).

Many people can rightly claim, "I don't have the skills or time" or "the technical aspects are just too much for me". This may be true but the vulnerability to manipulation remains.

From the patterns shown above it can be verified that this vulnerability to manipulation has a very strong hold on media outlets and current and former investigative journalists and researchers for the last quarter century concerning the Twin Towers collapses. From these parrerns of passive deference among so many in independent media a type of 'Golden Rule" is revealed:

Deferring judgment to a technical authority is 'the kiss of death' to critical thinking (on the Twin Tower's collapses)


In the case of the Turning the Tide conference 46 speakers deferred all technical knowledge of the Twin Towers collapses to 2 keynote speakers. In the case of the Independent Media Alliance 9/11 25th Anniversary Q&A panel all technical knowledge of the Twin Towers collapses was deferred to Dr Jones-Richard Gage. Both environments shared essentially identical core assumptions by default.

These unquestioned beliefs and patterns of default deferment to a perceived technical authority have been normalized for 2 key reasons:

1) A lack of independent efforts to verify or refute claims

2) Total passive deference to technical authority to the point of complete 'surrender' (which is the kiss of death to Twin Towers independent research and inquiry).


At the logical heart of the system is a binary ('truther' vs 'debunker') where 'truther' means you defer judgment passively to the technical authority of Dr Jones-Richard Gage or to the technical authority of Dr Wood-DEW (there being no third choice).

This triple steering of the Twin Towers collapse narrative by using sets of binaries is firmly entrenched in popular and professional culture. These common binary beliefs (even though cartoonish) form the foundational world views of the general public and professional-academic communities on the Twin Towers collapses currently (more than 25 years after the collapses).



HOW TO FACT-CHECK CLAIMS MADE BY ALL 3 PERCEIVED TECHNICAL AUTHORITIES



I provided 10 examples of pairs of graphics and claims, one 'truther' one 'debunker' side by side. I'll now demonstrate how to approach fact-checking each claim directly using evidence-based research techniques. Claims can be directly fact-checked through a 2 step process:

1) Construct accurate reconstructions and mappings of collapse features through primary research (already done on this (and former) website since 2010).

2) Use mappings as toolsets to directly verify or refute all claims.


As stated at the top of the homepage the website www.worldtradecenterevidencebasedresearch.net contains: The detailed mappings are:

Twin Towers Collapse Progression Model (ROOSD)

World Trade Center 1 Complete Collapse Mappings

World Trade Center 2 Complete Collapse Mappings

World Trade Center 7 Complete Collapse Mappings

Twin Towers Collapse Progression Characteristics

Perimeter Wall Collapse Model

Cores of Twin Towers Mapped During Collapses

How to Reconstruct and Review Collapse Events

How Subpixel Tracking is Used


The detailed mappings were constructed to be used as toolsets to help anyone fact-check claims about the Twin Towers.

It is hard to deny that direct verification is superior to deference to technical authority. Deference to a technical authority leaves one vulnerable to being manipulated (see Examples #1-10 and website for proof).

Detailed reconstructions of the collapses allow anyone to independently verify or refute claims by providing the public with fact-checking tools created through primary research working directly with the visual records of collapse events.



EXAMPLES #1-2 FACT-CHECKED THROUGH VISUAL RECONSTRUCTIONS OF COLLAPSE EVENTS





STEP 1: ASSEMBLE TOOLSETS

In fact-checking the 'truther' claims in Examples #1-2 I first assemble my tools which were prepared and in use in 2010 as follows:

Twin Towers Collapse Progression Model (ROOSD)

Perimeter Wall Collapse Model

WTC 1: Recorded Motion of the Perimeter Walls: Images on right show identifiable and trackable large sections of the WTC1 south, north, and west perimeter walls marked by colored regions:

           

Each perimeter wall can be divided into 3 regions separated by reinforced MER spandrels. Collapse progression proceeds down different regions at different rates.


These are the links to the most accurate visual reconstructions of the collapses of the 4 perimeter walls of WTC1:

South Wall Collapsing
Upper portion of west perimeter pops out and leads fall
Lower portion of west permeter falls as intact sheets
Upper northeast corner pops out and leads fall
North Wall Collapsing
East Wall Collapsing


WTC 2: Recorded Motion of the Perimeter Walls: Images on right show identifiable and trackable large sections of the WTC2 east, west, and south perimeter walls marked by colored regions:


          

Each perimeter wall can be divided into 3 regions separated by reinforced MER (mechanical equipment room) spandrels. Collapse progression proceeds down different regions at different rates.

These are the links to the most accurate visual reconstructions of the collapses of the 4 perimeter walls of WTC1:

East Wall
West Wall
South Wall
North Wall Motion

These are links to large collections of photographs the Twin Towers debris grouped by location:

Debris: WTC1 Around Footprint
Debris: WTC2 Around Footprint
Debris: From WTC1 Westward
Debris: From WTC1 Northward
Debris: From WTC2 Eastward
Debris: From WTC2 Southward
Debris: Plaza Area, Northeast Complex
Debris: Hilton Hotel, Southwest Complex
Debris: General, Unidentified Locations
Damage to Surrounding Buildings

The grouped locations are as shown below:



Note how I choose to use the most accurate and detailed Twin Towers collapse progression model together with collapse models for each of the 8 perimeter walls. I also chose visual reconstructions of the complete Twin Towers debris field grouped in sections.



STEP 2: RECOGNIZE THE HARRIT IMAGES ARE PART OF THE RUBBLE REGION CALLED 'Debris: From WTC1 Westward'

This means from the toolsets above we can limit ourselves to the following tools to place Harrit's chosen images as one part of the larger action of the WTC1 west wall:

Upper portion of west perimeter pops out and leads fall
Lower portion of west permeter falls as intact sheets

Debris: From WTC1 Westward

Perimeter Wall Collapse Model



STEP 3: RECOGNIZE THAT HARRIT IGNORES THE MASSIVE VISIBLE AND MAPPABLE ACTIONS OF THE WTC1 WEST PERIMETER WALL

Harrit claims the impossibility of large horizontal displacement of perimeter wall sections without rocket engines while Harrit ignores the action of the massive and mappable WTC1 west perimeter wall sheets mapped by using the tools in STEP 2.

Harrit is making an open public statement that he is unaware of any physical mechanism which would result in large lateral displacement of large perimeter column sections of the Twin Towers. His reasoning is unmistakable. gravity is vertical so GAME OVER!

But Harrit is also one of 2 key speakers on technical knowledge of the collapses and 46 of 48 of the other speakers passively deferred to him and Richard Gage on the technical aspects of the collapses. Taken to its logical conclusion, it means nobody listening in passive agreement has even a rudimentary knowledge of the unique action of the perimeter walls during the Twin Towers collapses (one of the most massive, distinct and unique features of the collapses).





EXAMPLES #3-4 FACT-CHECKED THROUGH VISUAL RECONSTRUCTIONS OF COLLAPSE EVENTS



'Truther' claims key physical characteristics of volcanic eruptions match those of the Twin Towers collapses and claims there is a direct match between the North Tower collapse and the 2009 Tongan Sea volcanic eruption.



STEP 1: SUMMARIZE THE 'TRUTHER' CLAIM CLEARLY WITHOUT VOCANOS, ROCKETS, FIREWORKS AND "FREELY FLYING MOLTEN OBJECTS"

What are those 'key physical characteristics'? They are stated as: They are also implied as: If we step back from these 7 Harrit-Gage claims and try to identify the actual 'key physical characteristics' Gage-Harrit are describing in simple terms they are:
(1) leading projectile trajectory as upward and outward or lateral

(2) particulate appearance and flow as upward and outward or lateral


Gage and Harrit claim these 2 fundamental and core characteristics of the Twin Towers collapses are inexplicable without (1) jet propulsion or (2) a volcanic scale external energy source. (This is literally what they are claiming.)



STEP 2: RECOGNIZE THE UNIQUENESS AND DISTINCTIVENESS OF THE TWIN TOWERS ARCHITECTURES AND STRUCTURAL DESIGNS AND THAT THE HIGHLY UNIQUE AND DISTINCT COLLAPSE PROGRESSION FEATURES WITNESSED WERE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE UNIQUE STRUCTURAL DESIGNS OF THE TOWERS

In reality the upward and outward or lateral observed motion of projectiles and particulate during the Twin Tower collapse progression processes were truly distinct, massive, and unique to these events. For example, if the Empire State Building or the Chicago Sears Tower collapses from about the same initiation elevations would one witness the truly unique and distinct upward and outward or lateral motion of projectiles and particulates as observed with the Twin Towers? I believe the answer is no for the following reasons.

All 8 perimeter walls (4 on each building) were mappable

The temporarily surviving cores of each building were mappable

Collapse fronts down all building perimeters were mappable


All these processes are mapped through the toolset links provided in Example #1.

The collapse could then be understood to be highly organized, as all 3 key structural components were found to fall in well-ordered, highly predictable ways. Not surprisingly, the highly unique and distinct collapse progression modes were directly related to the unique structural designs of the Twin Towers.

The collapse progression modes were remarkably controlled processes due to the nature of how the collapse fronts propagated down the structures trapped within confining outer walls. The collapse progressions were also highly regulated processes, moving at a near constant 8 floors per second downward through the structures. This means a steady state acceleration near zero. The qualities of strong confinement, terminal velocity, and zero steady state acceleration means that the Twin Towers collapse progression modes were effectively highly regulated, very controllable, and very predictable processes. This can be observed and understood (through the visual reconstruction toolsets) if one knows what to look for.



STEP 3: CONNECT THE TWIN TOWERS UNIQUE AND DISTINCT ARCHITECTURES AND STRUCTURAL DESIGNS TO THE UNIQUE AND DISTINCT UPWARD AND OUTWARD OR LATERAL OBSERVED MOVEMENT OF PROJECTILE AND PARTICULATE FLOW

The questions then become:

Can detailed mappings of large perimeter wall sections falling outward as massive sheets help explain the unique and distinct 'upward and outward' or lateral observed motion of projectile and particulate flow?

Are the leading projectiles in fact the tops of massive sheets of perimeter wall sections falling outward while still temporarily attached at the sheet base?

Was the unique and distinct Twin Towers collapse progression floor by floor mechanism effectively a buckle-less process? (involve absolutely no floor-by-floor column buckling?) I mean is the key mechanism a stripping of all flooring from comumn connections, core and perimeter, while trapped in a confining perimeter wall "cage"?

Once this perimeter 'cage' is stripped of its floor supports at about 8 floors per second and is left unsupported as a massive sheet with the top of the sheet falling outward, can't this action help explain the unique and distinct 'upward and outward' or lateral observed motion of projectile and particulate flow?



STEP 4: TIE THE UNIQUE AND DISTINCT TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSE FEATURE OF MASSIVE SHEETS OF PERIMETER COLUMNS STRIPPED, UNSUPPORTED AND FALLING OUTWARD TO THE OBSERVED UNIQUE AND DISTINCT UPWARD AND OUTWARD OR LATERAL PROJECTILE MOTION



STEP 5: RECOGNIZE THAT THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSE FRONT PROPAGATION MECHANISM OF BUCKLE-LESS STRIPPING CONFINED AND TRAPPED WITHIN PERIMETER 'CAGING' WAS, IN FACT, A GIANT GRINDER.

This is sad but true. When all the physical features mentioned are placed together:



The material action of the moving collapse fronts can be understood as massive caged industrial 'steady state' grinders.

Consider what it means to 'grind'. What is 'grinding'? What does a grinder do? How does it work in the simplest sense? For example, using a grinding stone to make flour.

Note the core difference between grinding and crushing. They are fundamentally different actions producing fundamentally different physical results.

What is the final product of 'grinding' compared to the final product of 'crushing'?





EXAMPLE #5 FACT-CHECKED THROUGH VISUAL RECONSTRUCTIONS OF COLLAPSE EVENTS



'Truther' Dr Steven Jones used this photoshopped image as his lead image in his October, 2005 47 page document "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" which formed the very first technical document of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Dr Jones and Richard Gage were informed in writing in their own forum that the image is photoshopped. The original argument shown to Dr Jones and Richard Gage and all forum viewers was preserved.



STEP 1: GATHER TOOLSETS

Dr Jones and Richard Gage were informed in writing in their own forum that the image is photoshopped. The original argument shown to Dr Jones and Richard Gage and all forum viewers was preserved and is located at this link:

Studies of Forgery of an Image Used by Steven Jones in his 2006 Paper

Anyone can look through all the images I used in the study of the photoshopped photo in this folder to fact-check the analysis:

https://www.worldtradecenterevidencebasedresearch.net/images/altered_photo/





EXAMPLE #6 FACT-CHECKED THROUGH VISUAL RECONSTRUCTIONS OF COLLAPSE EVENTS



'Truther' Dr Steven Jones claims this image of an oxy-lance cut made by workers well into the clean-up process is conclusive evidence of angle-cut columns by thermite.

STEP 1: GATHER TOOLSETS

Dr Jones and Richard Gage were presented evidence in writing in their own forum in 2007 that:
(1) there are no other images of any other columns cut in this way among all images of the debris,

(2) there are multiple physical characteristics on the cut which indicate use of an oxy-lance,

(3) the photo was taken in an advanced stage of clean-up and

(4) there are images of workers using oxy-lances during clean-up.


In the exchange Richard Gage (using user name "gravity32") imformed me that he agreed the angle cut is not the best evidence and that we should stop emphasizing this evidence. I informed Dr Jones and Richard Gage it is their responsibility to make a public statement because it was Dr Jones (and Alex Jones) that claimed this is "smoking gun" and "bombshell" evidence to the general public. My forum user name and password stopped working. The argument given to Dr Jones and Richard Gage in their forum was preserved at this link:

Critique of Dr Steven Jones Papers on the World Trade Center Collapses



Anyone who wishes can look for themselves to verify there are no other images of any other columns cut in this way among all images of the debris using the following toolset or any tools of their own.

Debris grouped by location:

Debris: WTC1 Around Footprint
Debris: WTC2 Around Footprint
Debris: From WTC1 Westward
Debris: From WTC1 Northward
Debris: From WTC2 Eastward
Debris: From WTC2 Southward
Debris: Plaza Area, Northeast Complex
Debris: Hilton Hotel, Southwest Complex
Debris: General, Unidentified Locations
Damage to Surrounding Buildings



My explanation to Dr Jones and Richard Gage must have had some effect because the key evidence of this angle cut column was not cited by Richard Gage on the show Hardfire in 2008, in the Steven Jones documentary 'Hypothesis' in 2010 or in the Richard Gage documentary 'Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out' in 2012 or in the Harrit or Gage presentations at Turning the Tide in 2026.

After my exchange with Dr Jones and Richard Gage in 2007 the bombshell evidence of the angle cut column quietly disappeared from future presentations.





EXAMPLE #7 FACT-CHECKED THROUGH VISUAL RECONSTRUCTIONS OF COLLAPSE EVENTS



'Truther' Steven Jones claims these 5 images from his October 2005 47 page paper is direct "smoking gun" evidence of thermite/thermate action in the Twin Towers rubble.



The angle cut column and photoshopped lead image in his paper were already examined in Examples #5 and #6. To these 3 blurry images are added. There is no evidence the 3 blurry images are of anything on the WTC premises since they cannot be placed anywhere in the debris field. There were no other known images of the debris field which were zoomed in and blurry like this as anyone can verify by looking through all known photos of the debris. This is a good place to start:

Debris grouped by location:

Debris: WTC1 Around Footprint
Debris: WTC2 Around Footprint
Debris: From WTC1 Westward
Debris: From WTC1 Northward
Debris: From WTC2 Eastward
Debris: From WTC2 Southward
Debris: Plaza Area, Northeast Complex
Debris: Hilton Hotel, Southwest Complex
Debris: General, Unidentified Locations
Damage to Surrounding Buildings






EXAMPLE #8 FACT-CHECKED THROUGH VISUAL RECONSTRUCTIONS OF COLLAPSE EVENTS



Richard Gage demonstrating with cardboard boxes why the Twin Towers were intentionally demolished at free-fall acceleration



STEP 1: FACT-CHECK THE CLAIM 'FREEFALL ACCELERATION' AS APPLIED TO THE TWIN TOWERS

The only accurate, careful effort to measure the propagation of the collapse fronts of the Twin Towers appears in the following toolset:

Twin Towers Collapse Progression Model (ROOSD)

A collapse front was located and measured down the southwest corner of the North Tower. The collapse progressed at a near constant steady state speed of about 8 floors per second. A near constant speed means effectively no acceleration at all. So how does Richard Gage, who cannot even locate a collapse front in the Twin Towers, claim any evidence for Twin Towers free-fall collapse rates? He just made it up or repeated what he heard elsewhere (with no evidence).



STEP 2: RECOGNIZE THAT GAGE IS CLAIMING THAT ALL (100%) STRUCTURAL SUPPORT BELOW FLOOR 98 OF THE NORTH TOWER LITERALLY DISAPPEARED AS THE TOP PORTION FELL AT "FREEFALL".

The following toolset contains the most accurate early measurements of both the upper northwest corner and the antenna mast ever taken. The research uses the technique of subpixel motion tracking (program 'syntheyes') with a resolution of +/- 6 inches on the WTC1 Sauret video (which was filmed from about 7 miles north of the collapses).

World Trade Center 1 Complete Collapse Mappings

The early descent of the WTC1 antenna and upper northwest corner had an acceleration on average of about 60% of that of gravity.



STEP 3: USE A THIRD TECHNIQUE TO RE-VERIFY THE GAGE CLAIM OF THE NORTH TOWER COLLAPSING AT FREE-FALL ACCELERATION

The set of images in the following link tracks a heavy object that fell from the collapse initation zone of WTC1 to earth in a way that can be seen clearly. It is, by definition, a free-falling object.

Freefall Comparison

The visible falling object can be compared to all other features that could be associated with the collapse propagation fronts. It can be proven in this way that the falling object leads all other collapse front features by a wide margin.







EXAMPLE #9 FACT-CHECKED THROUGH VISUAL RECONSTRUCTIONS OF COLLAPSE EVENTS



Dr Wood's claim that the Twin Towers did not collapse at all. They were dustified with DEWs



STEP 1: GATHER TOOLSETS

My first choice of toolset in this case is Debris grouped by location:

Debris: WTC1 Around Footprint
Debris: WTC2 Around Footprint
Debris: From WTC1 Westward
Debris: From WTC1 Northward
Debris: From WTC2 Eastward
Debris: From WTC2 Southward
Debris: Plaza Area, Northeast Complex
Debris: Hilton Hotel, Southwest Complex
Debris: General, Unidentified Locations
Damage to Surrounding Buildings



Using this toolset I was able to make the claim and prove that no similar "angle cuts" as shown in Example #6 were visible anywhere in the rubble photographs.

Anyone can also use this detailed record of the debris from multiple angles to search for a single core or perimeter column that appears partially "dustified". Can claimants of "dustification" find a single example of a partially dustified column section? Please show me.

If not, the claim is 100% dustification of steel segments or none at all? Are we asked to believe that 36 foot sections of core box, I-beam and perimeter column sections either (1) "dustified" completely or (2) didn't "dustify" at all. Seriously?



Dr Woods also claims evidence of "dustification" of the WTC1 "spire" caught on video by using a single set of images of a single section of the WTC1 core, the entire east-west width of which (all 8 columns) had survived the initial collapse.

So my next choice of toolset is the most accurate mappings of the WTC cores during the collapse which exist:

World Trade Center 1 Complete Collapse Mappings
Twin Towers Collapse Progression Model (ROOSD)

Dr Wood took a single zoomed in short video of the tops of 1 or 2 core column with heavy pulverization visibly falling off as they fell vertically, and called that visual evidence of DEW steel dustification in action. In reality all east-west columns in that row survived the initial collapse and all 8 can be seen falling eastward in massive sections or downward.



EXAMPLE #10 FACT-CHECKED THROUGH VISUAL RECONSTRUCTIONS OF COLLAPSE EVENTS



Both graphics have already been fact-checked in Examples #4 and #9

Professional demolitions are common. I ask each reader to run some simple reality checks:

How often do professional demolition companies require the forces of an erupting volcano to bring down a tall structure? (never)

Do they need to harvest hurricane energies to bring down a tall structure? (no)

Are there any examples of the use of rocket propulsion for lateral motion by professional demolition companies? (I can't see why there would be)

What is the intention of a demolition team? Is it to bring a building down or to blow it up with the TNT equivalence of a nuclear warhead? (bring it down)

If the Twin Towers had unique and distinct architectures with unique and distinct (and massive) structural qualities (and they did), wouldn't demolition planners have understood and utilized those unique qualities? (yes)

If the Twin Towers had 4 massive 110 story perimeter walls each that could act as containment cages for everything within (even under extreme conditions), wouldn't intelligent demolition planners utilize this unique feature in their plans? (probably)

If the massive perimeter walls, after acting like containment caging, then acted as massive sheets of webbing, now stripped of support and falling outward, wouldn't demolition planners have anticipated this (easy to predict) feature beforehand and used it to their advantage? (probably)

If a massive grinding and shredding action could be initiated inside the perimeter caging which would cascade all the way to the basements trapped within the perimeter caging, leaving the core still momentarily standing and the perimeters falling outward, wouldn't the demolition planners have utilized these unique features to bring the Twin Towers down that way? (Of course. It is a gift to them.)

Wouldn't intelligent demolition planners utilize unique structural weqknesses already existing within the as-is structures to cloak the act of demolition under natural collapse features as much as possible? (probably)

All high rise designs must have strengths and must have weaknesses. This is especially true for the Twin Towers because they had unique and distinct designs. Wouldn't intelligent demolition planners take advantage of the weakness of this unique high rise design? (probably)


The following tools approach the controversial question of demolition of the Twin Towers by assuming planners to be skilled and knowledgeable of the unique Twin Towers structures. The most accurate collapse mappings that exist are used to determine the relation between the earliest detectable motion and the earliest observed ejection patterns.


World Trade Center Demolition Question Reassessed

World Trade Center 1 Demolition Question Reassessed

World Trade Center 2 Demolition Question Reassessed


Note that the techniques examined don't require detonations on the scale of a volcanic eruption, metal under rocket propulsion or DEW "dustification" of the building's metal.





PERCEPTION OF THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSES IS LINKED TO ONES 'WORLD VIEW'. THE GENERAL PUBLIC-PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY HAS BEEN CONDITIONED INTO ONE OF 3 'WORLD VIEWS' (ON THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSE PROGRESSIONS).



A quick reminder on the term "psychological operation":


A quick summary of public-professionsl claims for a quarter century on the Twin Towers collapses:


These are the only 3 choices. All experts agree. Choose one of the 3. If you refuse to choose any of the 3 and develop and apply fact-checking toolsets to all 3 instead, this means you are as crazy as a loon.

A few more reality checks:

A choice between a match with a volcanic eruption and an "upper block" that "crushes down before crushing up"? 2 extreme cartoons with no other choice? Seriously?

A choice between no actual collapses (DEW action instead) and one requiring the same explosive forces as an erupting volcano? Again, 2 extreme cartoons with no other choice?

A choice between someone telling you "Gravity the only force? But gravity is vertical. GAME OVER!" and someone telling you the Twin Towers "upper block" crushed the "lower block" before "crushing up"? No other choice? Seriously?


Trying to understand the Twin Towers collapse progressions by using only the 2 contrasting 'debunker' and 'truther' claims in examples #1-10 and passively choosing either one or the other in each case is like trying to drive a car with a paper bag over your head. How can you expect to get anwhere with only these pairs of contrasting cartoons to guide you?

William Casey's vision for U.S. public awareness has already been realized for all educational levels and media platforms concerning the Twin Towers collapse modes for a quarter century and counting.



This essay explores how 'truther' and 'debunker' perceives and portrays the Twin Towers collapse modes through the 25th anniversary of the collapses. The Turning the Tide conference, the Independent Media Alliance 25th anniversary panel and the International Skeptics Forum activity are chosen as representative samples.

The dominant belief system is found to be a binary ('truther' vs 'debunker') where the term 'truther' is promoted and perceived as an artificially narrowed binary (as Dr Jones-Richard Gage vs Dr Wood-Dr Fetzer-DEW) and exclusion of all else by default.

It is shown that independent media and investigative journalists passively defer judgment to one of 3 technical authorities by default (on the Twin Towers collapse mechanisms).

The essay also demonstrates how to fact-check claims made by all 3 perceived technical authorities through a 2 step process:

1) Construct accurate reconstructions and mappings of collapse features through primary research (already done on this website).

2) Use mappings as toolsets to directly verify or refute all claims.


This essay demonstrates that this vulnerability to manipulation has a very strong hold on media outlets and current and former investigative journalists and researchers for the last quarter century concerning the Twin Towers collapses.

There is direct proof that the actual Twin Towers collapse modes have been successfully removed from public, academic and professional consciousness and have been replaced by cartoonish abstractions.

From the patterns of passive deference among so many in independent media a type of 'Golden Rule' is suggested:

Deferring judgment to a technical authority is 'the kiss of death' to critical thinking (on the Twin Tower's collapses)






________________________________________________________

This html document is the first of 4 documents in a series on "Perception and Portrayal of the Twin Towers Collapses a Quarter Century after the Collapses".

The next 3 document will fact-check:
The documents will be released soon under the following names:

RICHARD GAGE 25th ANNIVERSARY KEYNOTE PRESENTATION ON THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSES FACT-CHECKED THROUGH VISUAL RECONSTRUCTIONS OF COLLAPSE EVENTS

DR NIELS HARRIT 25th ANNIVERSARY KEYNOTE PRESENTATION ON THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSES FACT-CHECKED THROUGH VISUAL RECONSTRUCTIONS OF COLLAPSE EVENTS

SKEPTICS MOVEMENT 25th ANNIVERSARY STATEMENTS AND CLAIMS ON THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSES FACT-CHECKED THROUGH VISUAL RECONSTRUCTIONS OF COLLAPSE EVENTS