Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower

[Marc Powell]

Conspiracy theorists claim that puffs of smoke seen emanating from WTC 1 simultaneous with the crash of Flight 175 into WTC 2 are the result of explosions intended to loosen up the structure prior to its demolition and to take advantage of the plane crash to conceal their existence. At the 52:07 mark in the David Hooper film, The Anatomy of a Great Deception (viewable in its entirety at youtube.com/watch?v=l0Q5eZhCPuc ), Hooper presents a brief video clip from NBC News that shows WTC 1 with smoke pouring from windows on the east side and from the plane crash hole on the north side. Then, immediately before the ascending fireball from the crash of Flight 175 comes into view, the smoke streams suddenly form noticeable puffs. Below are stills from Hooper's film showing WTC 1 before the Flight 175 crash and a few seconds after.

Before:

Now, after:

Hooper tells the audience the following:

In this segment, the NBC camera is pointed at the North Tower, the first tower hit. In a few seconds the second tower is going to be hit. You will know it when it happens because of the reporter's voice and the fireball in the lower left corner of the screen. Now keep your eye on the east side, the one on the left. Notice how several tiny explosions go off as the second plane hits... the other building, perhaps in an effort to mask some necessary work prior to its demolition, as I was thinking at the time.

The puffs of smoke and their timing do indeed seem suspicious. However, the NIST report NCSTAR 1-5, Page 12, offers the following reasonable explanation:

In fact, in the original video which was the source of the zoomed-in clip Hooper presents in his film (WNBC Dub5 16 available on the NIST website), the pressure pulse can be seen rapidly traveling up the north side of the building sequentially pushing smoke puffs from windows and ventilation louvers. Here it is:

One is left to wonder where David Hooper gets his extraordinary ideas about the science of building demolition and why he and his crew of diligent researchers, including his Technical Director, Richard Gage, could not have read the NIST report and found out that the smoke puffs he believes are significant are actually indicative of exactly nothing.

 

[AmberRobot]

So the demolitionists knew to the second when exactly the second plane would hit?? Now that's impressive coordination!

 

[Marc Powell]

So the demolitionists new to the second when exactly the second plane would hit?? Now that's impressive coordination!

The "demolitionists" also knew ahead of time that the collapse of the North Tower would heavily damage Building 7 and set it ablaze so that their controlled demolition of the structure a few hours later (using top-secret silent, flashless, blastless and fire-resistant explosives) could be passed off as a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse. There is no CD "evidence" too whacky or too illogical to be embraced by conspiracy enthusiasts.

 

[Oystein]

I never thought to think of checking if and what NIST says on the matter. Over the years, I have seen Truthers point to the puffs as something suspicious. I had always thought that the are a result of an over-pressure wave travelling through the tubes (down the core shafts of WTC2, across through the sublevels, up WTC1 core shafts) and finding a way out where windows were already open.

At any rate, the idea that explosives would result in such "puffs" always seemed silly on its face to me. Puffs are very much low-speed events, high explosives are characterized by supersonic blasts.

 

[Marc Powell]

I never thought to think of checking if and what NIST says on the matter. Over the years, I have seen Truthers point to the puffs as something suspicious. I had always thought that the are a result of an over-pressure wave travelling through the tubes (down the core shafts of WTC2, across through the sublevels, up WTC1 core shafts) and finding a way out where windows were already open.

At any rate, the idea that explosives would result in such "puffs" always seemed silly on its face to me. Puffs are very much low-speed events, high explosives are characterized by supersonic blasts.

I attempted to calculate the speed of a pressure pulse that would travel the route you described to arrive at the windows of the North Tower at the time the puffs are visible. The distance the pulse would have needed to travel down, over, and up was approximately 2,600 feet and the puffs happened only about 0.9 seconds after the Flight 175 impact which means the pressure pulse would have needed to travel at more than twice the speed of sound. So, the smoke puffs had to have been related to direct interaction of the fireball with surrounding air as NIST described.

 

[Nada Truther]

I never thought to think of checking if and what NIST says on the matter. Over the years, I have seen Truthers point to the puffs as something suspicious. I had always thought that the are a result of an over-pressure wave travelling through the tubes (down the core shafts of WTC2, across through the sublevels, up WTC1 core shafts) and finding a way out where windows were already open.

This "info" from Hooper is new to me. I admit that I really haven't spent much time watching any of the Truther presentations... Just bits an pieces. But, I have always that that the "puffs" that truthers often use are the puffs of smoke and debris that are seen during the collapses. They are looking at them as demolition "squibs". This looks like the wave disturbing the already present smoke plumes, and I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the notion that this might have anything to do with internal explosions, to aid in the demolition or anything like that.

Maybe I misread your post OY, but I took it to mean that these particular puffs have been addressed as "evidence" before and it seems fairly new to me.

Not trying to argue... just basically saying... "Have we seen these before?"

 

[Oystein]

...
Maybe I misread your post OY, but I took it to mean that these particular puffs have been addressed as "evidence" before and it seems fairly new to me.

Not trying to argue... just basically saying... "Have we seen these before?"

Depends on who "we" would include in "we". I read some time ago about a language, I forgot which, that has like half a dozen different grammatical forms that all would translate to "we" in English, but actually denote different plurals of people. Always "I" plus at least one other person. Such as:
#1. I + you (the one I am talking to)
#2. I + you + the other people present
#3. I + other people present, but not including you
#4. I + some others who are not present
#5. I + you + some others who are not present
etc.

So to answer: we #4 have seen and discussed these before - that is I and people elsewhere. Just the other day, someone posted this in one of the Facebook groups I keep an eye on, and I "explained" it's over-pressure travelling through tubes...
I don't know if we #3 (we here on Metabunk. but apparently not including you) have discussed this before, haven't searched yet. (This is yet another "we", that, strangely, seems to exclude me, as I have no recollection having been part of such a discussion here if there was one.)

 

[Mendel]

Always "I" plus at least one other person.

Except when the nurse comes in to check on you.