The "Tower Collapse" Animation Sequences

Please allow time to download graphics. (45 MB) - Be patient, and if some images don't show up - please click "refresh" on your browser.

THE WTC2 COLLAPSE AT 9:59AM (as seen on TV)


This is a clip from the NBC archives. It should be immediately clear to any casual observer that this visual representation of Manhattan is not real. It has all the characteristics of a digitally rendered computer animation. Just as the "FOLLOW-UP SHOT" aired by CBS, it features black linings/ghost edges around the WTC. Of course, the absurd, dark-yellow hue of this "daylight shot" is unprecedented in the history of photography: Critics wishing to prove the contrary should provide samples to back up their contentions.

In case you should wonder, the slight 'bobbing' of the picture is supposed to imprint the idea of this being filmed from a helicopter (NBC's "Chopper4"). Ironically, this tilt motion is precisely what gyroscopic cameras will not allow: To the makers of this poor animation, we may say : "Fail".


Another horrendous cock-up by the "9/11 animation crew": White smoke is seen covering the West side of WTC7. It is inexplicably 'cut' along the edge of WTC7. Could it be a reflection? No: The sun being where it is, any 'reflection' would have been that of a shadow. The animation crew probably mistook the WTC7 NORTH FACE for a separate building and decided to make smoke emerge from behind it.

Note also the impossibly white smoke emerging from WTC1 in the small, central picture. NO lighting issues/camera angles may account for the black/versus white smoke aberration: All 3 shots have similar blue skies. Lastly, WTC7 was a red/brown building - not grey. None of these three shots are real.

The WTC2 COLLAPSE is fully analyzed in SEPTEMBER CLUES addendum CHAPTER1
The WTC7 COLLAPSE is fully analyzed in

THE WTC1 COLLAPSE AT 10:28AM (as seen on TV)


"Chopper camera" performs an 18-second zoom-in just prior to collapse start.

Two seconds after collapse initiation, the feed switches to "camera 2".

This fact alone must ring an alarm bell in any rational mind: what are the odds for this to occur? Did the "chopper cameraman" anticipate the collapse by sheer luck, zooming-in just in time to catch its start? Did the producer then - with Superman vision & reflexes - decide to switch the feed to "camera 2" within two seconds - perhaps for more 'drama'?...



The collapse proceeds and yet more camera switches are seen during this short time span. The switch from "camera 3" to "camera 4" is quite surreal: it is clearly the same camera - at two different zoom levels. And what about the final brightening of the picture? Did the 'ace' CNN producer notice "cam4" was too dark at that precise moment?

Another extraordinary aspect of this LIVE CNN shot: the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) claims that WTC1 collapsed in 11 seconds. Yet, what we see on CNN is a collapse which clearly lasts for at least 18 seconds. The whole "9/11 commission" was a joke -but of course- that's now common knowledge.

Note: The "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" organization had until late 2009 an article on their site describing, in finely detailed manner, the timeline of the WTC 1 "11 second collapse". When I pointed out to them the approx. 18-sec collapse from the CNN live feed (as seen above), I received this succinct reply from their webmaster: "Thanks for your message, we have now removed the relevant article from our website." The "A&Efor9/11TRUTH" organization is up to no good...

THE "CLONED" WTC1 COLLAPSE SHOTS ( ALL apparently "filmed" from Westside Highway )

The three shots below (we are meant to believe) were captured by 3 different cameramen, all placed somewhere north of the towers, on Westside Highway. Let's have some fun here and rate their respective performances, catching these crucial & historical seconds on film...

ZOOM OUT just after collapse start: Well done!_______ZOOM OUT just before collapse: Magic done!_______ZOOM IN precisely at start of collapse: PRICELESS !

Of course, the "CUT" seen in the third shot is totally absurd - yet this is the way this shot was aired on French National TV (Antenne2).

Now, let's have a look at more available clips/and pics from the same area. We will start with a TV shot featuring a woman ABC7 reporter. This should tell us (if these clips are real and legit) that ABC TV was placed right there - on Westside Highway - and that this shot was caught by an ABC camera placed on a tripod by a pro cameraman at safe distance from the WTC. He's still there when the WTC1 collapses...
ABC7 reporter announces WTC2 collapse (shortly after 10AM)________________WTC1 collapse (at 10:28AM) - clip shows between secs 12 and 16 from collapse start.

The following two shots show scenes of the WTC1 collapse. Timeline : Approx. 30seconds after the WTC1 collapse start. Not many folks walking/cycling by seem to be paralyzed, taken aback or even much worried about the disaster. NewYorkers are ostensibly a laid back lot, wisely turning their back on their problems and getting on with their business...In the righthand clip, the "sure" man's elbow is seen slicing through the gesticulating man in blue shirt, in ghostly fashion : these people are not real, they're just a computer-animated synthetic crowd.

Anonymous photographer snaps end of WTC1 collapse______________________End of WTC1 collapse (same vantage point as "ABC shots" above).

It should be evident now that the 9/11 imagery was concocted by an incompetent crew of animators. What we are left to analyze is a bunch of animated images unworthy of version 1.0 of our kids' Playstation. Please compare the two below shots with the four posted above.

THE LOGIC BEHIND THE TOTAL 9/11 TV SIMULATION: The tower collapse videos are all 'plagued' with irreconcilable discrepancies - as further demonstrated below. Naturally, most people will ask: "Why also fabricate the tower collapses, since they collapsed in reality (and were obviously rigged for demolition) ?" Please concede to my proposed answer the most careful consideration: to "prefabricate reality" on film was by far the safest way of staging the entire operation which involved the highly explosive, unpredictable dynamics of the destruction of the WTC. Surely, the very last thing the 9/11 planners would have risked was to show the real-life action on LIVE TV with all its unfathomable, visual variables - and ugly fireworks. Thus, as seen from the 9/11 planners' perspective, the logic behind airing simulated imagery on TV is founded in solid common sense. As hard as this may be to come to terms with, to dismiss this conclusion offhand is quite unreasonable: one cannot simply ignore the flawed, absurd and - ultimately - incontrovertibly counterfeited 9/11 imagery.


This video is attributed to "amateur" Rick Siegel. Does that smoke-reflection drift in the right direction?

Clearly, Siegel's video was made with a horribly flawed 3-D software with some jerky rendering bugs!

Two similar, frontal shots of the WTC1 collapse: Do both antennas appear to fall in the same direction ?
Objectively speaking, they don't. Yet both "cameras'" vantage points feature similar Northern vantage points. It is safe to say that these "tower-collapse" videos cannot both be real. More likely, none of them are: the towers collapsed behind a thick smokescreen - and were never captured on film. Also, consider this: The alleged author of the top left shot, one "Etienne SAURET", is credited with much 9/11 imagery shot "as he speedily roamed about the area". So where was Mr.SAURET when he caught this head-on shot of the 110-story WTC ?

In March 2010, the "SAURET-shot" was used again in a fanciful documentary by one "DIMITRI KHALEZOV". This man claims to be a "former soviet nuclear expert" and he uses - once again - the fake 9/11 imagery to illustrate why he believes the WTC was demolished by some nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, Dimitri's version of the SAURET-shot is a sorry disaster: his WTC tower only shows 39 out of 57 beams ! Evidently, the 9/11 fakery-team provided poor Mr. Khalezov with a scrap copy of the various test-runs of their computer animations... Note also that the 39 beams are askew in relation to the building's frame. This formidable cock-up establishes beyond reasonable doubt the fraudulent nature of the 9/11 imagery. Here's a link to our forum for all details and references to this conclusive proof of foul play.

These 2 shots are supposedly authored by two different cameramen. They are not :

IN CONCLUSION : The WTC collapse videos are just as "real" as these movie scenes :