How the Mainstream Media Covered-Up the Twin Towers’ Demolition on 9/11

Fact checked
How the mainstream media covered-up the demolition of the Twin Towers on 9/11

The belief that the Twin Towers collapsed into their own footprint on 9/11 as a result of the airline impacts and fires is, unbeknownst to most people, based on a complete lie.

Most people who witnessed the event of have done a small amount of research know that the Towers were likely brought down by controlled demolitions, which were then covered-up by the mainstream media and government. reports: This observation was first made 14 years ago in the article, 118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers.

A review of interviews conducted with 503 members of the New York Fire Department (FDNY) in the weeks and months after 9/11 revealed that 118 of them described witnessing what they interpreted that day to be explosions.

Only 10 FDNY members were found describing the destruction in ways supportive of the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.

The interviews of fire marshal John Coyle and firefighter Christopher Fenyo explicitly support this finding.

Coyle remarked in his interview:

I thought it was exploding, actually. That’s what I thought for hours afterwards… Everybody I think at that point still thought these things were blown up.”

Similarly, Fenyo recalled in his interview:

Covid variant BA.5 is spreading. It appears milder but much more contagious and evades natural immunity. Best to boost your immune system with new Z-Dtox and Z-Stack nutraceuticals from our dear friend, the late Dr. Vladimir Zelenko.

At that point, a debate began to rage [about whether to continue rescue operations in the other, still-standing tower] because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges.”

News reporters constitute another group of individuals who witnessed the event firsthand and whose accounts were publicly documented.

While many people have seen a smattering of news clips on the internet in which reporters describe explosions, there has never been, as far as we know, a systematic attempt to collect these news clips and analyze them.

We decided to take on this task for two reasons. First, we wanted to know just how prevalent the explosion hypothesis was among reporters. Second, anticipating that this would be the more prevalent hypothesis, we wanted to determine exactly how it was supplanted by the hypothesis of fire-induced collapse.

In this article, we present our findings related to the first question. In a subsequent article, we will examine how the hypothesis of fire-induced collapse so quickly supplanted the originally dominant explosion hypothesis.


To determine how prevalent the explosion hypothesis was among reporters, we set out to review as much continuous news coverage as we could find from the major television networks, cable news channels, and local network affiliates covering the events in New York.

Through internet searches, we found continuous news coverage from 11 different television networks, cable news channels, and local network affiliates. These included the networks ABC, CBS, and NBC; cable news channels CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNBC; and local network affiliates WABC, WCBS, and WNBC.

We also incorporated coverage from New York One (NY1), a New York-based cable news channel owned by Time Warner (now Spectrum), which we grouped with the local network affiliates into a local channel category.

Unfortunately, we were not able to find coverage spanning most of the day for every channel. Thus, while the collection of news coverage we compiled is extensive, it is not comprehensive. To fill in the gaps where possible, we included excerpts of coverage that aired later in the day if we found that coverage to be relevant.

We also included one excerpt from USA Today’s coverage that we found to be relevant and three excerpts from an afternoon press conference with Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Governor George Pataki that aired on almost every channel. In general, the times at which these excerpts aired are unknown, though in some cases we were able to identify an approximate time.

The news coverage we compiled and reviewed totaled approximately 70 hours.

Table 1: Television Coverage Compiled

Criteria for Defining ‘Explosion’ Versus ‘Non-Explosion’ Reporters

We sought to answer one main question in our review of the news coverage: How many reporters described the occurrence of explosions — both the raw number of reporters and as a percentage of all reporters who covered the Twin Towers’ destruction — and what was the nature of their reporting?

To answer this question, we needed to establish clear criteria for identifying what we will call “explosion reporters” and “non-explosion reporters.”

We should make clear that this article addresses the statements of reporters only and does not address the statements of anchors, except in the case of one anchor (CNN’s Aaron Brown) who had a direct view of the Twin Towers.

In our next article, we will address statements made by anchors, who were also interpreting the Twin Towers’ destruction but without having witnessed it firsthand.

Because the airplane impacts were often referred to as explosions, we were careful to exclude any instances where it was not absolutely clear that the reporter was referring only to the destruction of the Twin Towers.

As we studied the news coverage and began to recognize patterns in how the Twin Towers’ destruction was reported, we developed three separate categories of reporting that would classify someone as an “explosion reporter”:

  1. eyewitness reporting
  2. narrative reporting
  3. source-based reporting.

Below we provide definitions of each.

Eyewitness Reporting

“Eyewitness reporting” is when a reporter is an eyewitness with a direct view of or in close proximity to the destruction of one or both of the Twin Towers and perceives an explosion or explosions in conjunction with the destruction — or perceives one or both of the towers as exploding, blowing up, blowing, or erupting.

Although we usually excluded the word “boom,” which could apply either to an explosion or to a collapse, we included it in one case because the totality of what the reporter (Nina Pineda) described indicated that she viewed the event as being explosion-based.

We did not include reporters who described only a “shaking” or “trembling” of the ground. The perception of the ground shaking was widespread and constitutes important eyewitness evidence, but it does not necessarily reveal much about how the reporter interpreted what she or he was witnessing.

Among reporters who mentioned demolition, we excluded the ones who merely compared the destruction to a demolition whenever it was clear that the reporter believed it to be a collapse caused by structural failure. We also excluded reporters who used the word “implode” or “implosion” whenever it was clear that the reporter used it to describe the building collapsing in on itself, as opposed to a demolition.

Here is an example of eyewitness reporting:

David Lee Miller, Fox News, 10:01 AM:

Suddenly, while talking to an officer who was questioning me about my press credentials, we heard a very loud blast, an explosion. We looked up, and the building literally began to collapse before us […] Not clear now is why this explosion took place. Was it because of the planes that, uh, two planes, dual attacks this morning, or was there some other attack, which is — there has been talk of here on the street.”

Narrative Reporting

“Narrative reporting” is when a reporter refers to the Twin Towers’ destruction as an explosion-based event when speaking of it in the course of his or her reporting. This could be a reporter who was an eyewitness to the destruction or a reporter who otherwise understood the destruction to be an explosion-based event.

The main distinction between eyewitness reporting and narrative reporting is that eyewitness reporting involves an eyewitness describing his or her direct perceptions, often uttering them spontaneously, while narrative reporting involves interpretation and/or outside influence, either of which inform the reporter’s developing narrative of what took place.

(In several cases, reporters go from engaging in eyewitness reporting around the time of the destruction to engaging in narrative reporting later on, with their direct perceptions informing their developing narrative).

This distinction is not meant to imply that one type of reporting is more valuable or reliable than another. In this analysis, eyewitness reporting tells us about what reporters perceived and immediately interpreted during, or shortly after, the event. It thus gives us more information about the actual event.

Narrative reporting, by contrast, tells us how reporters interpreted the event after having more time to process their perceptions and to synthesize additional information from other sources. Narrative reporting thus tells us about the collective narrative that was developing among reporters covering the event.

Here is an example of narrative reporting:

George Stephanopoulos, ABC, 12:27 PM:

“Well, Peter, I’m going to give you kind of a pool report from several of our correspondents down here of basically what happened down here in downtown New York between 9:45 and 10:45 when the two explosions and the collapse of the World Trade Center happened.

At the time, I was actually in the subway heading towards the World Trade Center right around Franklin Street. And after the first explosion the subway station started to fill with smoke. The subway cars started to fill with smoke, and the subways actually stopped.

They then diverted us around the World Trade Center to Park Place, which is one stop beyond the World Trade Center. We got to that train station at around 10:35, Peter, and it was a scene unlike I’ve ever seen before in my entire life.”

Source-based Reporting

“Source-based reporting” is when a reporter reports on the possible use of explosives based on information from government officials who said they suspected that explosives were used to bring down the Twin Towers.

Source-based reporting is similar to narrative reporting in that it involves outside influence. The main distinction is that source-based reporting is based on information from government sources. Information from government sources inherently indicates how government agencies were interpreting the event and is sometimes given extra weight by reporters and viewers.

Here is an example of source-based reporting:

Pat Dawson, NBC, 11:55 AM:

Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department…[He] told me that shortly after 9 o’clock he had roughly 10 alarms, roughly 200 men in the building trying to effect rescues of some of those civilians who were in there, and that basically he received word of a possibility of a secondary device — that is, another bomb going off.

He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place. And then an hour after the first hit here, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here.

So obviously, according to his theory, he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building…But the bottom line is that, according to the Chief of Safety of the New York City Fire Department, he says that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions. And he said that there were literally hundreds if not thousands of people in those two towers when the explosions took place.”

Non-Explosion Reporters

The main criterion we developed for classifying someone as a “non-explosion reporter” was that she or he reported on the destruction of one or both of the Twin Towers and did not engage in any of the types of explosion reporting defined above.

To qualify as a non-explosion reporter, it was not necessary for the reporter to explicitly articulate the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. The mere absence of explosion reporting was enough to classify someone as a non-explosion reporter.

The challenge here lay not in identifying the absence of explosion reporting but in defining what constituted “reporting on the destruction.” In the end, we decided this should mean that the reporter had to describe the event of the destruction and not simply mention it in passing.

We should note that a reporter’s use of the word “collapse” did not necessarily qualify that person as a non-explosion reporter. Many explosion reporters described the occurrence of an explosion followed by collapse and they used the word “collapse” in their reporting (David Lee Miller, quoted above, is a prime example).

Thus, use of the word “collapse” is not incompatible with being an explosion reporter and did not qualify someone as a non-explosion reporter.

Also, if a reporter made a statement that qualified him or her as an explosion reporter and then subsequently made a statement explicitly supporting the fire-induced collapse hypothesis (which is the case for WABC’s Joe Torres), we classified this reporter as an explosion reporter because he or she engaged in some explosion reporting at some point during the day.

In this analysis, being classified as an “explosion reporter” does not imply a permanent stance. Rather, it just means that at some point in the day he or she reported the occurrence of explosions or the possible use of explosives in relation to the Twin Towers’ destruction.

Before we move on to the next section, it is important to note that because non-explosion reporters had to describe the event of the destruction and not simply mention it in passing, the only way to make a valid numerical comparison between explosion reporters and non-explosion reporters is to include only those who engaged in eyewitness reporting.

According to the criteria we developed, explosion reporters who engaged in narrative reporting were not describing the event of the destruction but rather were referring to it as an explosion-based event in the course of their reporting, i.e., in passing.

A comparable classification does not exist for non-explosion reporters, because we excluded those who only mentioned the event in passing (most commonly using the word “collapse”).

Numerical Analysis of ‘Explosion’ and ‘Non-Explosion’ Reporters

In total, we identified 36 explosion reporters and four non-explosion reporters in the approximately 70 hours of news coverage we reviewed. The 36 explosion reporters and their statements are listed in Appendix A. The four non-explosion reporters and their statements are listed in Appendix B. In addition, there were three borderline cases that we determined could not be clearly classified as either explosion or non-explosion reporters. Those cases are listed in Appendix C.

Of the 36 explosion reporters, 21 of them engaged in eyewitness reporting, 22 of them engaged in narrative reporting, and three of them engaged in source-based reporting. Recalling our definitions from above, this means the following:

  • 21 reporters witnessed what they perceived as an explosion or explosions during the destruction of the Twin Towers or they perceived the Twin Towers as exploding, blowing up, blowing, or erupting.
  • 22 reporters (eight of whom also fall into the eyewitness reporting category) referred to the Twin Towers’ destruction as an explosion or an explosion-based event when speaking of it in the course of their reporting.
  • Three reporters (two of whom also fall into the narrative reporting category) reported on the possible use of explosives based on information from government officials who said they suspected that explosives were used to bring down the Twin Towers.
  • Four reporters reported on the destruction of the Twin Towers and did not report explosions in any way (either having witnessed explosions, having interpreted the destruction as being an explosion-based event, or having been informed by government officials about the possible use of explosives).

In terms of the percentage of explosion and non-explosion reporters, 21 of the 25 reporters who directly witnessed the destruction of the Twin Towers, or 84%, either perceived an explosion or explosions or they perceived the Twin Towers as exploding, blowing up, blowing, or erupting. In comparison, four of the 25 reporters who directly witnessed the destruction of the Twin Towers, or 16%, did not report explosions in any way.

The tables below list each reporter and each instance of reporting according to the time at which each report was made.

Table 2A: Eyewitness Reporting by Explosion Reporters

Table 2B: Narrative Reporting by Explosion Reporters

Table 2C: Source-based Reporting by Explosion Reporters

Table 2D: Non-Explosion Reporters


The picture that unmistakably emerges is that the great majority of reporters who witnessed the destruction of the Twin Towers either perceived an explosion or perceived the towers as exploding.

This hypothesis of the Twin Towers’ destruction then continued to be prevalent among reporters covering the event, who essentially viewed the destruction of the towers as an explosion-based attack subsequent to the airplane strikes.

We learn from the source-based reporting that the same hypothesis was also held by officials in the FDNY, the New York Police Department (NYPD), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) — three of the most important agencies involved in the response to the attacks. In particular, with regard to the FBI, we are told the explosion hypothesis was the agency’s “working theory” as of late in the afternoon on 9/11.

Unlike members of the FDNY, most of whom provided their accounts during interviews conducted weeks or months after the event, it was the job of reporters to spontaneously communicate their perception and interpretation of events.

Thus, when their reporting is compiled into one record, we are left with a rich and largely unfiltered collective account of what took place. Considered alongside the FDNY oral histories, these reporters’ statements, in our view, constitute strong corroborating evidence that explosives were used to destroy the Twin Towers.

Regarding the four non-explosion reporters, in addition to the fact that there are so few of them, we find that their individual accounts add little support to the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.

Two of the reporters were quite far away from the Twin Towers at the time of their destruction relative to most of the explosion reporters: Drew Millhon was “about 10 to 12 blocks north of the World Trade Center,” at the intersection of Varick Street and Canal Street, while Bob Bazell was at St. Vincent’s hospital on West 12th Street, approximately two miles from the World Trade Center.

Meanwhile, Don Dahler, the only reporter who explicitly articulated the fire-induced collapse hypothesis, nonetheless likened the South Tower’s destruction to a controlled demolition, saying:

“The entire building has just collapsed as if a demolition team set off — when you see the old demolitions of these old buildings.”

The fourth non-explosion reporter, John Zito, was quite close to the South Tower when it came down. He did not describe an explosion, but he also did not attribute the destruction to a fire-induced collapse. It is worth noting that Ron Insana, whom Zito was with, vividly described seeing the building “exploding” and “blowing” and hearing a “noise associated with an implosion.”


Returning to the first question posed at the top of this article, we conclude that the hypothesis of explosions bringing down the Twin Towers was not only prevalent among reporters but was, in fact, the dominant hypothesis.

Furthermore, the 21 instances of eyewitness reporting, all of which contain spontaneous descriptions of the phenomena the reporters witnessed, strongly corroborate the overwhelming scientific evidence that explosives were used to destroy the Twin Towers.


  1. The twin towers were loaded with asbestos. Dick Cheney owned the company that was directed to at their own cost (billions) remove it. They didn’t remove it, instead they used it to their own advantage to start endless wars in the middle east for Israel, who are the people who own and run and invented freemasonry. That is why the responders all have lung and cancer problems. Also billions of gold bars in the basement were procured after the demolition. It is what high illuminati freemasons do. They do evil and make money off of it. If someone decides to report their crimes in the works, a freemason will be directed to them and make an offer, knowing ahead of time what financial needs/ they have that the freemasons can cover for them. I know of one person working in a building on renovations that had asbestos in it. They told him not to report the problem to forget about it and they would pay for his college education.

    • Israel didn’t even exist when freemasonry was created. Israel was created to please, the King of England Read the Balfour Declaration..
      England set it up as Romes colony. A Briton is still legally “a slabe of Rome” By law.

    • WRONG AGAIN DICK CHENEY never owned any companys he was a CEO appointed at where? and where? you don`t know again!!! everyone in america knows where dick cheney was a CEO at in america as that floated around the news for years where and where?.He is not a billionare he has a few milliuons in kicks bacs

  2. The crimes are ongoing, all part of one supreme plan of the devils/fallen angels. The wars that occured in the once peaceful and holy Middle East were also a satanic ritual to consecrate it entirely in the blood of innocent people, men women children and babies to Lucifer.
    They caused endless wars on the innocent neighbors of Israel. They will allow Israel to take over all of the Middle East and control the oil. They helped bankrupt the USA as all wars are used to do. They killed JFK with the help of the CIA. They did it in order to destroy america. He had to be removed so they could bring in their man Johnson and start the moral decay of america, drugs and the sex industries perversions and abortions and athism/removal of prayer in the schools, turning the schools into dumming down anti-schools. They aslo took down all organized crime and replaced them all with the ashkanazi/khazarian mafia. They now have a monopoly on organized crime. They are the same people who the Rothchilds and Rockefellers funde to take down Russia, a once Chritian nation and turn it inot Gog, owned by the antichrist, a communist athiest Hell hole, which was a big satanic ritual in the blood and torture of millions to consecrate it to Lucifer. They still own and run Russia/Gog. They also took almost 100 years to bring down China and turn it into Magog. China once had more christians than the entire rest of the world combined. They made it a communist athiest hell hole it is now. The model nation of their NWO. They consecrated it to Lucifer in the blood and torture of 100’s of millions of innocent civilians.

    The fact that america gave the Holy Land of God to the antichrist, Hedonists, Ashkanzi imposter white jews who have no semitic blood whatsoever, and you worship them and feed your egos on their lies that give you pride to do it, is why america will be struck, just as the Bible warns us in revelations. Why it is mystery Babylon the great, that will fall in one day. Then they will take the world down.

    They will do the same thing they did to Russia and China to the entire world throufgh their control of the media with LIES, the Global banking system, and the Vatican and every non catholic evangelical Christian religion that are all controlled at the top by freemasonry.

    You have less less than a year to wake up to the truth and stop worshipping the antichrist who is about to bring about the mark of the beast after the fake rapture. When you will be unaided by those who do know the truth, you will all accept the mark and be lost to Hell for eternity. Everything bad that is happening in this world is working toward that goal.
    Forced vaccines are just the part of the plan to force acceptance of the mark of the beast.

    9-11 and the resulting wars and everything you have been forced to accept that is evil but they tell you is good, is all part of that plan. The own nothing and be happy is part of the plan: They will tell you that the mark and the brain implants will give you happiness, the feeling of Joy and pleasure. It is a LIE, the exact opposite is true and it will make you even sicker and more damaged than the vaccines do.

    Even the Pope is in on it. He will push the fake Jesus savior on you. He will tell you to take the mark of the beast.
    They are ALL Freemasons/satanists at the top of everything under the control of Lucifer and the fallen angels.
    You do not need top down dominance, you need to turn the pyramid of evil upside down and take back your power and free will by returning to God and rejecting these devils from Hell. Once you return, they can’t touch you. Unite in Christ Jesus and save your souls. It all ends in 2023. The time has already been extended. Your choice is: eternal Heaven or eternal Hell.

    • The Vatican Bank employed the Rothschilds to work for them. Communism is the fundamental system of the Catholic Church By law they are the world’s central communist government as God’s Stewards They own everything in trust from God. They are communists. They pretend to be Monarchists and fascists and socialists and even capitalists depending who they’re talking too, who they’re convincing. But their own law is that they are communist. They decide who deserves what.

      • Nice try! Everyone knows it was israel and zionists who pulled off 911. The truth will come out and you monsters will pay for your crimes!

  3. Total BS planes went down all over america the jets hit the towers and tons of REAL PEOPLE DIED the invaders were back tracked coming in from mexico.SEND ALL YOUR MONEY TO THE VATICAN BANK or WW-III JESUS DEFUND THE POPE!!! NEWssPUNCH needs you FUNDs also to the Vatican BANK care of the broke POPE in the ROMAN COURT yard talking to mare

  4. What a crock of s–t. Of course, tons and tons of debris collapsing onto the floor below is going to sound like an explosion after explosion.

    • Grow up The third tower didn’t get hit by any plane but collapsed just as perfectly as the bigger two. That was obviously to anyone with any clue at all the most perfect professional demolition ever witnessed. Not one neighbouring building was hurt at all It was absolutely neat and flawless.
      And all the science will confirm that and that it was fine with thermo nuclear exoduond in the basement s as well as explosives built into every floor on every corner which the workers 8n the buildings all stated they knew maintenance workers had been doing stuff on every floor in every corner for weeks beforehand m

      • YOUR crazy as rat smit two(THE TWIN)- towers two jets and you could SMELL IT COAST TO COAST and the airwaves were shut down for weeks.As the other targets also went down.They IMPLOADED due to the HEAT from the fires and they were a slow fall.NO they would`nt fall over as the impack could`nt make that happened due to the design for airplane impacts which have happpened before a few times.Your off your subject stick too your pope money train subjects

      • I talked to people that were there and the implosion of the buildings falling was unbelievable. Everything would have been weakened. Its foundation would have been rocked beyond measure.

  5. Look when the winter Olympics were on that year the reported were all praising what a fantastic job ot was yo be able to live stream events and explaining how it took 6 months for the system to be set up so they could
    stream it all live to the world.
    They live streamed twin towers in about 30 minutes so they say and all from some tourists little Sony video camera
    they had set up in
    their hotel room that
    just happened to be
    recording the whole
    event.The third tower didn’t get hit by any aircraft all but just collapsed in sympathy. Remember that.
    No one with any brain at all ever believe that.
    Or anything they ever say actually.
    “never trust anyone” Queen Mum “remember – – – nothing is what it seems” QE2

    The third tower didn’t get hit by any aircraft but collapsed in sympathy. Anyone who saw it happening live streamed on their lttle tele wherever they lived, in outback crocamont

    • Or wherever, sorry but some little hackers disrupted the site and obscured the comments box, as usual, nothing new, for them.
      Anyone from timbuktu to tallahasse zoo could watch the obviously globally planned event with ease.

  6. An israeli security agency was used at the airports and the buildings belonging to zionists, it was all set up by mossad and israelis. They will pay for their crimes!

  7. Once the fire weakened the structural steel framing to the point of failure (at the floors that were impacted), all the storeys above acted as a building being dropped on top of the building below and that caused the instantaneous demolition of both parts. Building floors and column framing structures are not designed for these extremely height shear loads. The asbestos fireproofing would have only provided about two hours of protection but I suspect that large sections of steel were immediately exposed to fire, without asbestos protection, due to the plane impacts. Office furniture and construction finishes provided plenty of fuel for the fire.

    • RIGHT! they were designed for plane impacts but it was later stated that some metal plates were faulty and not up to building code also.The new design NOW is to keep any fire in place and it is made out of SUPER CONCRETE that is custom designed and the building of the new buildings from the start to end are online and run about two hours.The building tech seems impossible even.BUt 911 was all TOO REAL and you could smell the Fire for days coast to coast

    • Like you say the HEAT weakened the metal-they were a slow slow fall into themself`s.Their design failed But also in 911 many other targets were hit.It was`nt any FN WTF stage work or stunts as I worked in hollywood and know those types of stunts myself.But now those days are gone also with digital effects but 911 was NO FAKE OR FLUKE

  8. “This observation was first made 14 years ago…”
    Sorry, NO. On Sept 11, 2001, I that night I watched an interview with Donald Trump when he said “I’m a builder, it couldn’t have happened the way they said it did. It had to be done by explosions.” Shortly after 911 happened, a group formed called Architects Pilots and Engineers and they presented their idea that thermite was used and presented evidence to explain how likely it happened. This idea was on the internet in alot of places. So no the observation that it was explosions came out the very night that 911 happened.

    Nice censoring on this website. Nice double standards, while continuously slandering the censoring of the censored and controlled MSM.
    Posted two comments about 9/11 two days ago. None went through, despite other anonymous comments are not-censored and approved.


    Nice censoring on this website. Nice double standards, while continuously slandering the censoring of the censored
    and controlled MSM.

    Posted two comments about 9/11 two days ago. None went through, despite other anonymous comments/or accounts are not-censored and approved.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.