Visible ROOFTOP explosions just before North Tower Collapse

found this don't knowv if a topic was started on it .

Interesting to say the least ...

www.youtube.com...

Excellent observation!!

Additional energy was poured into that prior to collapse. Remember that these buildings are over 200 ft wide - that is a lot of additional energy going in there to create the faster rising smoke.

As Scotty says: "You can ne' beat the laws of Physics"!!!

[edit on 5-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Sorry, no explosion there.

Seriously, there isn't one part of that video that shows anything resembling an explosion, which starts the collapse of the tower.

reply to post by elevatedone


How do you explain the faster rising smoke that is evident immediately prior to collapse?

[edit on 5-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

As much as I believe that the WTC's were controlled demolitions, I just can't see any explosion.What I see is a rush of smoke from the collapse.
The "explosion" and collapse happen at the same time.
I haven't seen this one before so I thank you for posting it regardless of my opinion.

there is defintely energy being released before the collapse if there was some kind of exotic device used to take out the core I doubt it would look like a conventional explosion.

Also you have to take into consideration the amount of heat that was still coming from the ground at the wtc months after the event .

Some of the firemen report that you didn't even need to wear jackets on the pile in the middle of january because of the heat still present . With that knowledge and the reports of molten metal and the extreme tempertures at ground zero well over 1200' this was no normal fire under that rubble.

certainly appears fishy to me.

To my eyes, that looks like smoke being pushed thru a vent (or hole) by a sudden rush of air pressure. I'd say it's probably from the beginning of some collapsing structure within the building that's just hidden from view. It's possible that collapse is what set off the chain reaction that brought down the whole building.

The speed of that rush of smoke is more consistent with a collapse than any sort of explosion.

Hear Hear, that particular smoke plume is a dead giveaway. If you view it specifically in real time, it does not follow the regular smoke pattern as seen on the roof with the other smoke. That particular plume was upwards, not swirly as the regular smoke was.

Just my opinion though. Good thread OP, good catch

Wouldn't the failing and subsequent fall of the floors create a vaccum and suck air in, not necessarily blow it out?


Just a question..

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Wouldn't the failing and subsequent fall of the floors create a vaccum and suck air in, not necessarily blow it out?


Just a question..

That's a good thought. I'd say it could go either way, but if it was actually a part of the space directly under (or at least atmospherically coupled to) that vent that was collapsing, the trapped air would have to go somewhere and that vent is as good as any. This pressure wave of escaping air due to the collapse is also what caused the huge ejecta cloud.

reply to post by StudioGuy


It'd have to be, right? Either that or some sort of energy that had come another explosion, an accelerant, or air pushed upwards by the collapsing slabs. That would mean a floor failed ABOVE the impact zone, which wouldn't make sense hold up to simple reasoning. Why would any floor above the damaged area not maintain it's integrity?

Where's Tom_Bedlam when you need him?

Fires normally burn upward, this is especially true in high rise building
where the "stack effect" - building acts like chimney routing fire and
smoke upwards. Fires were burning above the impact zone. Internal
collapses cause air to be expelled violently pushing fire and smoke out -
remember each floor is about 90 % air space.

reply to post by thedman


Okay, but still... The only failure would have happened due to the tremendous force of the crash, not the fire. Correct?

Oh, and also, wouldn't the fire be most intense and drawn towards the impact zone the plane had created?

what if its a "rewerse bunker buster " you see , instead of dropping it you use it in the center and blow upwards ?

dosent it consit of to charges one to penetrate and one to do the damage , well if you have one that makes a blast hitting the cores and another about the hight of where the plane hit would you get the desired effext ?

[edit on 6-12-2007 by zerbot565]

well what do you all think about the section in which the gentleman is talking and you hear the explosion in the background before the collapse? You can tell when the collapse starts by the screams of the people and the roaring in the back. Just wondering?

I think this video is indeed interesting - and I think we can (and will) debate the finer physics of this collapse practically forever...

But the dead giveaway that the plane didn't cause the "implosion" is clear - more energy (much, much, more energy) was put into the system then possible by the planes/fire/gravity driven collapse...

And as the last Loose Change clearly shows - NIST is scared as sh*t about even discussing this most obvious evidence...

It's a frikkin' slam dunk - add in WTC 7 - the lack of Pentagon Tapes - and the ludicous NORAD stand down - and there's really no place for doubt...

However, I like most truthers simply look forward to more and more evidence coming to light until an actual - impatial - official criminal investigation is finally begun.



[edit on 6-12-2007 by TruthMagnet]

The smoke spews right after the shaking

i believe that what we are witnessing in this video is the first part of the chain reaction giving way


the smoke looks like it forced out right at the moment the roof begins to fall.