New footage of both towers collapse emerged after 23 years

[DasKleineTeilchen]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/embed/MM9h60AesrI

description:

Footage I filmed of the World Trade Center Collapsing on 9/11/2001. Filmed from the roof of 64 St Marks Place in NYC on a Sony VX2000 with teleconverter. For historical archival purposes only.

I believe this maybe the best footage so far that shows clearly part of the central column still standing after the collapse of the north tower;

 

[Ann K]

I believe this maybe the best footage so far that shows clearly the central column still standing after the collapse of the north tower;

Well ... If that's the central column, it shows the lower fraction of it.

 

[DasKleineTeilchen]

Well ... If that's the central column,

most certainly it is.

it shows the lower fraction of it.

changed it;

part of the central column

better?

 

[Thomas B]

At 5:33 we see what appears to be ejections (what was once called "squibs" from well above the floor that appears (glowing orange) to be the initial collapse front. What is causing these ejections?

At this point, the facade does not seem to have undergone the buckling from the (sagging) floors pulling inwards. The radio mast doesn't seem to have moved either (so the hat truss, holding up the core, hasn't moved downwards?)

The standard explanation for the ejections is that they were "caused by the sudden rush of air compressed under the descending upper levels" (Wikipedia). But that can't be what's going on here, right?

Any ideas?

Also: why is there such a clearly marked floor that is literally glowing, exactly where the collapse is going to begin? It's just below the impact floors, as far as I can tell. Why is exactly that floor (not the ones above or below) apparently uniformly damaged across its entire span?

 

[benthamitemetric]

At 5:33 we see what appears to be ejections (what was once called "squibs" from well above the floor that appears (glowing orange) to be the initial collapse front. What is causing these ejections?
View attachment 70631
At this point, the facade does not seem to have undergone the buckling from the (sagging) floors pulling inwards. The radio mast doesn't seem to have moved either (so the hat truss, holding up the core, hasn't moved downwards?)

The standard explanation for the ejections is that they were "caused by the sudden rush of air compressed under the descending upper levels" (Wikipedia). But that can't be what's going on here, right?

Any ideas?

Also: why is there such a clearly marked floor that is literally glowing, exactly where the collapse is going to begin? It's just below the impact floors, as far as I can tell. Why is exactly that floor (not the ones above or below) apparently uniformly damaged across its entire span?

If you have a particular argument you wish to make about any of these topics, spend time to actually develop it in a rigorous way and then post it in its own thread.

 

[Mendel]

At 5:33 we see what appears to be ejections (what was once called "squibs" from well above the floor that appears (glowing orange) to be the initial collapse front. What is causing these ejections?

The incipient collapse of the tower.

What are squibs claimed to be, and what caused them?

At this point, the facade does not seem to have undergone the buckling from the (sagging) floors pulling inwards.

Which sides of the tower are claimed to have undergone buckling? What was the extent of the buckling? Would it have been recognizable on this video?

The radio mast doesn't seem to have moved either (so the hat truss, holding up the core, hasn't moved downwards?)

Where is a downwards motion of the North Tower radio mast documented? Which motion does this video show, and why?

The standard explanation for the ejections is that they were "caused by the sudden rush of air compressed under the descending upper levels" (Wikipedia). But that can't be what's going on here, right?

Why do you think this can't be going on here? What did the collapse initiation look like on the North Tower?

Also: why is there such a clearly marked floor that is literally glowing, exactly where the collapse is going to begin? It's just below the impact floors, as far as I can tell. Why is exactly that floor (not the ones above or below) apparently uniformly damaged across its entire span?

Because there is a fire on that floor. What agent(s) could have caused a large fire underneath the aircraft impact? What role did the fire play in collapse initiation?

---

How much research does a truther have to do to get any respect around here? At least this much. I believe my questions can be answered from the 9/11 report (and possibly the FAQ) and this forum. Discussing at ignorance of these belies the amount of time you have used on this forum.

 

[Thomas B]

The standard explanation for the ejections is that they were "caused by the sudden rush of air compressed under the descending upper levels" (Wikipedia). But that can't be what's going on here, right?

Why do you think this can't be going on here?

The ejections are happening above the collapse front and before the upper levels begin to descend.

 

[Trailblazer]

At this point, the facade does not seem to have undergone the buckling from the (sagging) floors pulling inwards. The radio mast doesn't seem to have moved either (so the hat truss, holding up the core, hasn't moved downwards?)

I don't think this is true. To me it appears that the ejections are simultaneous with the start of the downward motion of the radio mast, at 5:33. And remember, the mast isn't dropping straight down. It is tilting away from the camera which means that in the first instant of the collapse, the far side of the tower will be buckling, out of the view of the camera.

The view is from the northeast, and we know that the mast (and top portion of the tower) tilted towards the south.

A stabilised and constant-zoom version of the video would help to determine this, if anyone can create one, because the camera is zooming out at this moment which makes it hard to see exactly when the mast begins to drop.

 

[Thomas B]

A stabilised and constant-zoom version of the video would help to determine this, if anyone can create one...

Yes! That would be much appreciated. As would a split screen of the same moment from another angle.

To me it appears that the ejections are simultaneous with the start of the downward motion of the radio mast

I agree that they are very close in time. The important thing to debunk is that they are prior to any downward motion (presumably in the core).

If they are the result of the downward motion, they might indicate some sort of impact (of the upper section of the core on the lower section?). But there does not seem to be enough time to make the compressed air mechanism plausible.

Mendel brings up a good point.

Which sides of the tower are claimed to have undergone buckling?

The ejections may be effects of the actual buckling of the facade (which can't be seen from this point of view). It would be very interesting to describe the sort of buckling mechanism that would eject material this way.

 

[Scaramanga]

At this point, the facade does not seem to have undergone the buckling from the (sagging) floors pulling inwards. The radio mast doesn't seem to have moved either (so the hat truss, holding up the core, hasn't moved downwards?)

The standard explanation for the ejections is that they were "caused by the sudden rush of air compressed under the descending upper levels" (Wikipedia). But that can't be what's going on here, right?

Any ideas?

Also: why is there such a clearly marked floor that is literally glowing, exactly where the collapse is going to begin? It's just below the impact floors, as far as I can tell. Why is exactly that floor (not the ones above or below) apparently uniformly damaged across its entire span?

I watched it numerous times and no 'squib' appears before the start of the collapse.

Also, you can clearly see the collapse does not start on the floor with the glowing. It is very evident that the topmost floor and the TV mast collapse first.

 

[Thomas B]

Mendel brings up a good point.

Which sides of the tower are claimed to have undergone buckling?

The ejections may be effects of the actual buckling of the facade (which can't be seen from this point of view). It would be very interesting to describe the sort of buckling mechanism that would eject material this way.

It looks like it was the south facade that buckled. According to the NIST FAQ:

The subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.

https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-towers-investigation

That's the side opposite the one we're looking directly at (the plane hit the North face).

The good thing is that this means there's some catastrophic mechanical action going on on the far side that we can't see, probably a few moments before the ejections. I'm still not sure exactly what it is, but it's not unreasonable to suppose there are some serious forces operating in the core immediately after the face buckled. That this might cause a violent ejection of material is also plausible.

 

[Scaramanga]

The ejections are happening above the collapse front and before the upper levels begin to descend.

Actually the tower starts to tilt slightly away from the viewer....which is actually the direction the top collapsed...and if you look really carefully you can already see this happening at 5:32, just before the 'squibs' appear. At 5:30 and 5:31 the right hand side of the tower is completely straight....then all of a sudden at 5:32 there is a very slight kink in that straightness. Then just a second later the 'squibs' appear. So the top of the tower leans over a few feet before the main collapse. In fact it is probably that buckling that caused the whole structure to collapse.

 

[Thomas B]

Actually the tower starts to tilt slightly away from the viewer....which is actually the direction the top collapsed...and if you look really carefully you can already see this happening at 5:32, just before the 'squibs' appear. At 5:30 and 5:31 the right hand side of the tower is completely straight....then all of a sudden at 5:32 there is a very slight kink in that straightness. Then just a second later the 'squibs' appear. So the top of the tower leans over a few feet before the main collapse. In fact it is probably that buckling that caused the whole structure to collapse.

I think you may be right about this. See also my post above. But I don't understand this:

you can clearly see the collapse does not start on the floor with the glowing. It is very evident that the topmost floor and the TV mast collapse first.

As I understand the collapse mechanism, the failure occurred about 12 floors from the top, where the worst fires were. If it had occured within five floors from the top, the building might have survived:

there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case).

https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-towers-investigation

 

[Scaramanga]

As I understand the collapse mechanism, the failure occurred about 12 floors from the top, where the worst fires were. If it had occured within five floors from the top, the building might have survived:

I don't think there was ever a single point of failure. The towers were designed for there not to be. Rather, the entire structure was weakened in multiple locations, and it only needed the slightest extra burden for a total cascade of the whole lot.

 

[Thomas B]

I don't think there was ever a single point of failure. The towers were designed for there not to be. Rather, the entire structure was weakened in multiple locations, and it only needed the slightest extra burden for a total cascade of the whole lot.

According to NIST, your view tends toward the "controlled demolition" theory:

NIST's findings also do not support the "controlled demolition" theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

• the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-towers-investigation

I'm trying to avoid that conclusion.

 

[Scaramanga]

According to NIST, your view tends toward the "controlled demolition" theory:

Huh ? That's precisely the theory I am refuting.

 

[JMartJr]

The confusion here may result from a disagreement as to whether "the impact and fire floors" constitutes a "single point of failure?"

 

[Thomas B]

I believe my questions can be answered from the 9/11 report (and possibly the FAQ) and this forum.

It seems the standard explanation (though it probably won't satisfy all skeptics) is that not too much can be made of these ejections.

These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar "puffs" were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.

https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-towers-investigation

The answer to my original question seems to be that there were a lot of forces at work inside the building. So it could have been any number of pressures that caused those ejections. Nothing to see.

 

[Thomas B]

Huh ? That's precisely the theory I am refuting.

You said:

I don't think there was ever a single point of failure. The towers were designed for there not to be. Rather, the entire structure was weakened in multiple locations,

The controlled demolition theory is precisely that the entire structure (all the way up and down the length of the towers), not just the structure on the impact-and-fire-affected floors, would have to be weakened in order to produce the observed colllapse.

This is probably correct:

The confusion here may result from a disagreement as to whether "the impact and fire floors" constitutes a "single point of failure?"

It just seemed like you were saying there were key failure points up near the top of the towers too. NIST says "conclusively" that "the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else." And it offers that as part of refutation of controlled demolition.

 

[Scaramanga]

The confusion here may result from a disagreement as to whether "the impact and fire floors" constitutes a "single point of failure?"

The trusses were not arranged symmetrically around the tower. Rather, the trusses on two opposing sides contained extended beams that were held up by trusses on the other two sides. That meant that in fact the outermost trusses on the side hit were actually trusses connected to a beam holding up the trusses on the two other sides. So what you effectively have is trusses connected to other trusses, and over 40% of the trusses are not directly connected to the core structure. Its not hard to see how damage to this weakens the other sides of the building....which is my point about 'no single point of failure'. You can see that in these images...

 

[Mendel]

The good thing is that this means there's some catastrophic mechanical action going on on the far side that we can't see, probably a few moments before the ejections.

If only we had video footage of this that people have been obsessing over for decades...

Imagine a board, put matchboxes on the corners, then place another board on top. You now have two floor slabs. Simultaneously push out two matchboxes (e.g. with a ruler), making the upper board tilt and come down. Air is being displaced by the descending board. In what direction is it being ejected?

The answer to my original question seems to be that there were a lot of forces at work inside the building. So it could have been any number of pressures that caused those ejections. Nothing to see.

Exactly. This thread discusses air pressure waves progressing through the ventilation system: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...wtc-north-tower-before-flight-11-crash.11997/ This makes them appear in spots not related to the origin of the pressure.

Generally speaking, I'm happy that you managed to sort your concerns into the larger context of knowledge about the destruction sequence.

 

[Thomas B]

...that people have been obsessing over for decades...

Yes, I'm trying to piece together a comprehensive model that makes sense of the collapses as a whole. Once this model (mental or physical) collapses it must include forces that explain observed details (like the ejections) that have most captured the imagination of obsessives. I think this is the best way to help them.

 

[Fetch]

Yeah, I've done my diligence and read through this. I try to follow a lot of the theories for open-mindedness. I really don't see how 767s crashing, exploding and burning (and perhaps continuing to explode) don't fit with this just parsimoniously enough already.

If one were to just nose-dive such an aircraft on a tarmac and, even after a brief pause for effect, tightly contain it with concrete, steel and the softer materials office people bumped into before cell phones got really weird, there might be a similarly demonstrable result.

I mean, drone operate the whole thing, of course. I don't want to ask for volunteers on that reboot of Myth Busters.

Definitely interesting to see fresh, clean footage. Been a long time since I revisited that so vividly.

 

[Landru]

Yes, I'm trying to piece together a comprehensive model that makes sense of the collapses as a whole. Once this model (mental or physical) collapses it must include forces that explain observed details (like the ejections) that have most captured the imagination of obsessives. I think this is the best way to help them.

This is not the thread to discuss new models. It's a thread about new found footage.

 

[elvenwear]

What are squibs claimed to be, and what caused them?

Squibs are used by Special Effects people to create fakes gunshot wounds in films. They consist of a charge or squib, a blood pack and something to protect the wearer. They are placed under a shirt and are triggered during filming.

It seems the term has been co-opted by advocates of the 911 conspiracy theory. It sounds like the term squib is being used to mean charges placed by conspirators.

Advocates of the 911 conspiracy theory attribute the window panes popping out to these squibs.

And yes, this probably belongs in it's own thread.

 

[Duke]

Squibs are used by Special Effects people to create fakes gunshot wounds in films. They consist of a charge, a blood pack and something to protect the wearer. They are placed under a shirt and are triggered during filming.

The squib itself is just the explosive device, the blood pack is an application.

A squib is a miniature explosive device used in a wide range of industries, from special effects to military applications. It resembles a tiny stick of dynamite, both in appearance and construction, but has considerably less explosive power. A squib consists of two electrical leads separated by a plug of insulating material; a small bridge wire or electrical resistance heater; and a bead of heat-sensitive chemical composition, in which the bridge wire is embedded.[1]​ They can be used to generate mechanical force to shatter or propel various materials; and for pyrotechnic effects for
film and live theatrics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squib_(explosive)

Squids are used heavily in both the defense and automotive industries, often to initiate/detonate other energetic devices upstream in a system.

 

[Mendel]

Squibs are used by Special Effects people

I had really asked the question(s) to get Thomas to do some of his own legwork to answer his own question, and he did arrive at an answer, in post #18.