Visible ROOFTOP explosions just before North Tower Collapse

Hi all. I stumbled upon this video a few days ago, and I don't even remember the original web traffic route I used to get there. Today, it actually took me a few hours to find this video again.

I've never seen this particular issue discussed on 911blogger or any other site for that matter. With so much focus on William Rodriguez and countless others who reported explosions in the basement and on other lower floors, it seems that discussion of explosions on the upper floors - especially at roof level, has not been given much attention. I, for one, had never noticed the specific explosive puffs documented in this video.

Though the music is a bit sensationalist, this 3 minute clip makes an interesting point: The smoke from the airplane crashes serves, literally, as a smokescreen for roof-level explosions just prior to when the North Tower's antenna begins to drop. Thanks to the jet fuel smoke, these roof-level explosions are extremely camouflaged; like I said, this particular point never struck me until a few days ago, after over 2 years of intense 9/11 research and activism.

Now, it does appear to me that these puffs of dust are indeed separate explosions and not from the ordinary fire. (In other words, my gut intuition is that this video is NOT deliberate disinfo.) However, since this has not gotten much attention, I welcome any interpretations that challenge this. The "debunkers" like to claim that the squibs that occur well below the collapse zone are the result of a gravity-induced air pressure (an absurd rebuttal, I know). But how can we explain these visible squibs at roof level which clearly happen BEFORE the building begins to fall?

Sorry but this is wholly

Sorry but this is wholly inconclusive, the “dramatic music” is ridiculous and Siegel is a known disinfo clown.

Show "The Smoke Is Just TV Fakery" by Brainster

disinfo trash

disinfo trash

What is more likely is that portions of the roof supported by the hat truss were failing - allowing smoke to exit out of the top of the tower, or some other mechanism (floors collapsing in the upper storeys) allowing more smoke to exit through an already exposed roof.

But one thing is for sure - these clowns practice misdirection - they depend on the power of suggestion to influence people. They are Used Car Salesmen.
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month


"What is more likely is that portions of the roof supported by the hat truss were failing - allowing smoke to exit out of the top of the tower, or some other mechanism (floors collapsing in the upper storeys)"

Why would portions of the roof have failed or floors suddenly collapsed?

I don't think it is out of the question that what we see is connected with taking down the building.

Same with east penthouse on WTC7, down 6 seconds before the rest

Herblay FRANCE

I did not see this side smoke the first time. The second and third reveiwing I do. Now I will have to look at my archive videos to see if this side smoke is in them as well. We could be witnessing the destruction of the cross beams supporting the heavy antenna ?

In the same way we can see a predestruction of the east penthouse on WTC7 which came down about 6 seconds before the rest.

Yours John


Never really noticed the smoke bursts before.

They are quite large and indicative of something - internal collapse, failure, who knows.

Yet if internal failure were the casue, bursts of smoke would have been evident out the windows of the building's sides also at this same time.

This activity seems isolated at the roof, where of course the 'hat truss' structure was located and vital to the support of what I believe was an antenna that weighed 30 tons (possibly an erroneous figure.)

Getting a very heavy rooftop object to begin moving downward quickly would be helpful in ensuring a complete collapse. Destroying the hat truss would be necessary in this case.

I object to the name calling in some comments to this post

I thought this site was going to eliminate the name calling and character assassinations?

This is video information, its meaning must be established by techniques of forensic analysis.

Name calling and character assassination has no place in any such investigation.

If you have FACTUAL information relevant to this video, then submit it, otherwise name calling when you engage in it destroys YOUR reputation and credibility and negates the value of this site overall.

For someone who's made 1 contribution to this website...

in your 32 weeks and 1 day of being a member, your objection comes off a little more than suspect to me.

I'm curious to know what your "smoking gun" evidence is for 9/11 being an inside job. I'm gambling on that it has to do with TV FAKERY. But I wouldn't know for sure since you've contributed absolutely nothing to this website regarding your 9/11 views.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your post above, but when it comes from a member who has not participated on this website at all (unless you're using a sock puppet), I find it more objectionable than "name calling".

The "disinfo clowns" that DBLS speaks of who put this video together deserve nothing less IMO.

However, I do view the rooftop explosions as more evidence (not that we need anymore) of controlled demolition.

But I also view this as an attempt by the disinfo clowns to reestablish credibility with people who aren't aware of their past (and current) behavior on the internet of promoting the most wacked-out and debunked theories like "beams from space" taking down the twin towers, to cartoon / no planes at the WTC. I also view this video as an attempt to discredit controlled demolition theories, knowing that people who view this video will stumble upon their other "research" and videos posted on websites like youtube.

I personally have been victimized by this disinfo team you are defending who are associated with this video's "inspiration". Not physically, but a victim of identity theft. Myself and some others on this website exposed some of these frauds who were spamming 911Blogger with their usual BS, proving that their bogus theories weren't true one by one, and shortly afterward I discovered that one of them stole my moniker and began posting those theories under it (If you Google stallion4, the first hit that comes up is for a video channel with dozens of no planer videos and other bizarre stuff posted on it. But I digress).

The persons who made this video have no interest in truth or justice. They're only interested in mucking up the waters and making it harder on those who are truly working toward those things.

"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

David Duke right on the front page.


Show "Video evidence is not counterbalanced by name calling" by leschwartz

If you're defending Siegel

If you're defending Siegel then your comments are 100% ironic and hypocritical because that joker has done nothing but attack and "name call" great people like Dr Jones and GW from this site amongst others. Aside from that he pushes clear as day disinfo garbage, "space beams and mini nukes" brought down the Towers, after "no planes" hit them according to Siegel. The guy also sabotaged 911mysterys claiming copyright infringement and got it taken down from google video for a brief period - now is that what a genuine truther would do? Or is that that type of behaviour a Cointelpro-esq style shill would engage in? I call the later.

Show "Name calling is wrong no matter who does it" by leschwartz

Could have said something sooner, mate

Like during the KW hoax controversy. Tarpley's supporters could have done with a message like this.


Totally irrelevant and just more unproven accusations

Clearly you are hear to work certain grievances,

I do not agree with anything you have said, and to be totally frank, I am not even interested in your opinion about it in the first place.

My comment is about how you and others like you are destroying the value of this site by making every topic into something about your BS personal grievances and to spread your name calling.

Why don't you put up a post where you discuss those topics with people who are interested in them and stop polluting every other posting with your accusations and name calling?

Give us a friggin break already.

Roof explosion and a smoking gun

So you need a smoking gun.

Why not read the facts and evidense given by 9/11 Scholars for Truth.

Professors and Physicists who have studied this and analyzed the dust at the molecular level and have proven the residue of thermite which is used in controlled demolition.

Why not take into account that virtually all witnesses that day claimed to hear secondary explosions a half an hour after the plane impacts.

Why not take into account that no video has ever been shown of a plane hitting the Pentagon and they have made damn sure no video exists of that time frame.

Why not look at the recent developing information coming out from the former Italian President:
Former Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio Francesco Cossiga has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy's most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.

What will happen when the Former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien turns out to be the next high profile 9/11 truth advocate if he follows up on a promise to watch a copy of the Loose Change Final Cut DVD that was handed to him at a recent book signing in Vancouver.

What about Osama Bin Laden being a CIA creation. This is not groundbreaking information, it is basic common knowledge. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are direct creations of western intelligence as we have thoroughly documented. Al Qaeda itself was a joint CIA/ISI intelligence database of mujahudeen fighters they had recruited in the late 70s and eighties to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

That not even to mention that the instructors at these flight schools came right out and said that none of these so-called hijackers could have flown any plane - at all!

And you must address the fact that many of the so-called hijackers on the CIA list were found later and alive in other countries. And the other simple fact that none of the hijacker names were on any of the flight lists for the planes that day. How the hell did they get on a plane if they had no ticket and were not on the flight list?

You see - no smoking gun is needed. A little common sense and a desire to see the truth when it is right in front of you is all you need.

Sadly, you have neither one.

North Tower explosion at the top

This video points out an interesting tidbit. However I think the evidence for a North Tower-top explosion is more evident if the camera is pulled back.

For those that don't know, there was a single significant shock-wave that emanated from the start of the north tower collapse. I've added this info to the 911blogger "blogspace" here :

My impression of the roof puffs shown in the video above is that they would be venting holes for a much larger explosion below.

There was no such airplane

There was no such airplane crashes in the modern human history, for sure. But one thing is - no building would fall down this way, both buildings, one by one on the same way if they were not wired with dynamite. Simple as that!

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one."
Edmund Burke

The recent criticism of this site are proving to be true

This site is going to hell in a hand basket and the recent comments I have heard about it are proving to be true.

And that judging by half of the comments to this video, a video, which is nothing more than a video.

Where is the evidence of tampering with this video?

What the hell does this video have to do with the "no planes" hypothesis? Which, if it matters I do not support either.

Half of the comments on this page are nothing but name calling and attempts to discredit certain people.

And isn't it strange how those are the comments with the "points" assigned to them.

Himmmm maybe this is a concerted effort by a number of individuals to sow dissension, and disrupt people with an interest in the evidence?

It certainly appears that way to me.

"Recent critisism of this site"

From who, if you don't mind my asking? Or where?

"Half of the comments on this page are nothing but name calling and attempts to discredit certain people."

By "certain people", are you talking about Ricky? Cause he's discredited himself ages ago, mate. Just the way it is. ;-)