Fire on the Roof of the South Tower?

[Mangoose]

I'm trying to track down the provenance of a curious little video I downloaded in May 2006 from Youtube or some other site. This is a clip presumably from a broadcast and it shows the WTC from the south sometime after the crash of UA175. This clip is unusual in several respects: (1) It shows a significant fire at the impact hole of UA175 on the South Face of WTC2, (2) It shows a constant flurry of rapid, small smoke puffs on the floors above the impact hole, (3) It shows a significant blaze on the roof of WTC2 of which there is no other photographic evidence of, as far as I have encountered.

Here are some frame grabs:

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3847/wtc2firescd5.jpg

Anyone know where this is from?

The fire on the roof could only have been kindled from the fireball (as far as I know), and so that suggests that -- if genuine -- this clip was recorded close enough to 9:03 (but not too close, since the Hezarkhani video does not show this fire on the roof), and this roof fire was short-lived (since it does not appear in later helicopter views from the south). Since most video was taken from the north or east, this fire would not have been visible in other videos because the smoke rising from WTC1 would have hidden it from view. The main problem however is that photos of the South Face of WTC2 presented by NIST show no significant fire at the impact hole and these are dated by NIST to 9:04, 9:06, 9:07, 9:11, 9:16, 9:23, 9:28, 9:30, 9:40, so I'm not sure where the video would fit chronologically. The most fire is visible there at 9:04, so perhaps this video was taken around 9:04-9:05? As for the fire at the South Face of WTC1, it looks most like NIST photos from ca. 9:15, but as there are no photos displayed for 9:05 or so, it is possible that it could reflect the view from that time as well.

Are there any other photos taken very close to 9:05 from the south? The only other good examples I can find are the Dom Foulsham images that are dated by NIST through their EXIF data:

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/7425/p7300427atz7.jpg

P7300427.jpg -- 1999:07:30 12:23:52 [= 9:03:47, according to NIST]

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/5641/p7300428axc9.jpg

P7300428.jpg -- 1999:07:30 12:23:55 [= 9:03:50, according to NIST]

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/4027/p7300429akr2.jpg

P7300429.jpg -- 1999:07:30 12:24:41 [= 9:04:36 according to NIST]

But by 9:06, the scene looked like this:

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/521/laterrp3.jpg

I would love to be able to authenticate or provenance this footage....it shows rather dramatic fires. But it is a very unique view that has no other exemplar as far as I know. Maybe there is a hint of a roof fire here in P7300428.jpg:

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8594/p7300428bvo1.jpg

But that pic is very ambiguous.

The video sounds like it was broadcast either live or before the collapse of WTC2, as the voiceover says, "....a few minutes ago. We are almost sure now that this is the work of terrorists, we can clearly see both the World Trade Centres, 1 and 2, heavily damaged, fire and smoke pouring out...", and the anchor-person has a British accent, so perhaps this is from SkyNews or BBC. The BBC footage at archive.org however does not have this view, at least the footage that was broadcast before 9:30 (which consisted only of helicopter views).

[Gravy]

The fire on the roof is a fake.

[yodaluver28]

I agree with Gravy. Based on the shape and color of the "roof fire" in the first and second shots, it looks like someone copied and pasted the fire going on in the North Tower onto the top of the South Tower.

[Mangoose]

Yes, I have been suspicious of the video for the reasons stated above.

But what makes it certain that it is a fake? Has this been discussed prior in the past? Is there another version of this clip without the fire?

[CptColumbo]

It also appears to be hovering above the roof, by a few feet. That just with first glance.

[Bell]

One wonders, why fake this?

[leftysergeant]

I'm not that sure it is fake. There were a couple of secondary explosions on sveral floors above the impact point, more than halfway to the top of the tower from the imprint. Fuel being driven UP the elevator shafts, I would think.

And, if you look carefully at the first screen grab on this page, there appears to be a straight edge to the smoke a couple floors higher than the flame, suggesting that it is still rising along a solid surfe at least a floor higher than the flames. I see no inconsistancy here. These fires would not be visible from the roof.

[Kryptos]

This was posted on another thread, but this video with the NYPD aviation unit crew should show the roof of both buildings. Though, the smoke may so bad that the view of the roof is not clear. Or maybe it can help answer the question.

to5FJTrHt1k

[Gravy]

I've seen the clip before. It is a fake. How would the fire get up there? No elevator shafts go to the roof and no duct work goes from the impact zone to that fire area.

What would be burning, causing 50-foot high flames? There is no fuel there. It's an observation deck. Concrete, steel, aluminum.

Why does that fire not appear in any other photos or videos?

Why was it not reported in NIST's detailed account of the WTC 2 impact and fire progression?

Just a sad fake.

[Pardalis]

One wonders, why fake this?

Why do twoofers do anything?

[Mangoose]

I think a good way to falsify this video would be to find the original audio and see if it comes from another source. Or if the video clip itself exists elsewhere that lacks the flames. Trouble is that this whole clip is new to me, so I haven't seen the source (unless the whole thing is CGI or whatever). Maybe someone played around with their own private video? Those clusters of puffs above the impact hole are also unique and would have been fabricated as well if they weren't in the source video.

I think it is a GOOD fake (if indeed a fake), which may give one pause about other videos appearing in places like Youtube. On the other hand, if one can find the clip within an original broadcast, that would help authenticate it. Or another photo showing similar features as this video.

Unfortunately, there is a dearth of footage from the south of the WTC. The majority comes from the north, with a good deal from the east and west. There is one one video of the collapse of the North Tower taken from the south.

[Bell]

Why do twoofers do anything?

I didn't understand from Mangoose's OP that it was a troofer video. Is it?

But if so, what would a troofer gain from faking this video? It seems like a waist of his time to me.

Oh, wait... like denying 9/11 at all is not a waist of time :)

[Mangoose]

There are twoofers (KillClown, bsregistration, etc.) who believe that all the plane footage is faked. If a convincing fake is made of something that could be shown didn't happen, then the motive there would be to lend credibility to claims of fakes elsewhere. The audio would imply that this is a "fake" that aired live. It could make them say, "See, here is more evidence of video fakery!" That could be a possible motive.

[Pardalis]

Mangoose, why don't you post a link to the video yout took the screen caps from?

[Bell]

There are twoofers (KillClown, bsregistration, etc.) who believe that all the plane footage is faked.

Where did Killclown say the plane footage is faked?[/Killclown mode]

[leftysergeant]

There do appear to have been fires, at least intermittantly, on the floors about two or three down from the top. I see no sign of fakery here. Smoke is just obscuring the top couple of floors in the screen cap.

[Gravy]

There do appear to have been fires, at least intermittantly, on the floors about two or three down from the top. I see no sign of fakery here. Smoke is just obscuring the top couple of floors in the screen cap.Correction: there is every sign of fakery and no sign that this is real. Much later, there was smoke from some windows on that side, around the 105th floor, where people had apparently broken windows. There was no sign of fire there.

[Mangoose]

Killtown's newest sick joke:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98009

The video is no longer online, I can't find it anywhere, so I'd have to post it...what is a good temporary place to upload it to? I'd rather not Youtube it considering its dubious status.

[Pardalis]

I know this one: http://www.megaupload.com/

[Mangoose]

Gravy's point that there was no fuel on the roof is the best point against its authenticity I've seen.

Plus my observations that it doesn't seem to fit well chronologically with other images of the south side of the building.

[Pardalis]

Is the picture in the OP the exit wound for the WTC 2?

If so, and if the picture is not faked, the odd fire at the top of WTC 2 could be a remnant of the fireball, which would be going upwards as it was "evaporating" (not sure if that's the appropriate term).

Just a thought.

[Gravy]

Is the picture in the OP the exit wound for the WTC 2?

If so, and if the picture is not faked, the odd fire at the top of WTC 2 could be a remnant of the fireball, which would be going upwards as it was "evaporating" (not sure if that's the appropriate term).

Just a thought.No, it's the entrance, and the fireball had dissipated long since, nor did it affect that portion of the building significantly.

[Mangoose]

Pardalis: It is the "entry wound" of WTC2. The problem with claiming that it is a remnant of the fireball (which would be the only explanation for the fire) is that the fire does not appear in the Hezarkhani video, and it does not appear in the Dom Foulsham photos. So the fire would have had to have flared up and intensified later. How could that have happened without fuel?

[Pardalis]

I found this, which looks like the same angle:

LtV4YW9LMJc

Maybe that's one of the videos you just mentioned Mangoose?

[BenBurch]

When a very large fire like this is underway, there is not enough oxygen getting to the fuel and hot incomplete combustion gasses often rise within the building. If they escape and are hot enough, or there is an ignition source then flames can erupt. They can also build up in a confined space in the floors above a fire and then detonate.

[CptColumbo]

Looking closer it also looks like it has no depth. It seems to be at a different angle then the roof.

[Bell]

I found this, which looks like the same angle:

LtV4YW9LMJc

Maybe that's one of the videos you just mentioned Mangoose?

There's a longer version of that video. Originaly it was filmed sideways (long side up). I tried to find it but couldn't. I think one of the JREF members has it on his YouTube account?

[maxpower1227]

Looks like that former Reuters employee found new work.

I guess what I'm trying to say is:

http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/images/thumb/f/fa/Looks_shopped.jpg/250px-Looks_shopped.jpg

[Mangoose]

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=7MP5NU0W

How about the flurry of rapid, small smoke puffs above the entry hole. Does that look faked as well or could that have been from the video source? Or might the entire thing be phoney?

[Pardalis]

This better not be porn... ;)

[leftysergeant]

Check this out. He claims that the TinaCart1 video is taken from the same location as the Robert Clark or Wolfgang Staehle photos. To do this, he over-lays the video onto one of the pics, I'm not sure which one and calls it proof that they were from the same location.

Just look how much the towers move to the right when the video over-lay flashes, while WTC 7 just gets smaller.

Different angle and slightly greater distance from WTC 7 is the only explanation I can see. He also has Staehle and Clark working on the same roof.

Sick little puppy.

[Mangoose]

It's a similar angle but not from the same position, as the building on the left does not appear in it from ground level.

The perspective looks more like that of Foulsham, who was in a high rise south of the WTC:

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/2836/foulshamjy3.jpg

[Mangoose]

I have over a thousand clips on my computer of both towers burning (prior to the collapse of WTC2) so I'm gonna go through them to see if I can find an original view from the south that may have been the source of this clip that may have then been manipulated.

[BenBurch]

I have over a thousand clips on my computer of both towers burning (prior to the collapse of WTC2) so I'm gonna go through them to see if I can find an original view from the south that may have been the source of this clip that may have then been manipulated.

Excellent.

You know if you would get me that on a data DVD I would host it so everybody could see them...

[parky76]

It is a fake. Why would someone do that?

[BenBurch]

It is a fake. Why would someone do that?

There are a lot of really SICK people in this world.

[Mangoose]

So far I've found only one video view from the south...definitely not the same footage. Because the south view was the least represented in the publically-available video and photo footage, I was willing to consider that the video represented something not seen elsewhere (e.g. the roof fire would not have been visible from the east or north), but there were just too many weird things about it regardless.

Ben Burch: I have got to find the time to organize my 9/11 photos, videos, and files (112 GB), it's getting out of control.

[BenBurch]

Ben Burch: I have got to find the time to organize my 9/11 photos, videos, and files (112 GB), it's getting out of control.

Well, when you do I'll set up a site just for it. Split the net proceeds (if any) with you 50/50. :)

[njslim]

I have seen this in some Twofer posts by supporters of the Judy Woods "STAR WARS
DEATH RAY". It was done supposedly to show the death ray impacting the building
and cause the collapse. I concur it looks faked. Have to check over at ABOVE TOP
SECRET - believe it was posted several months back.

[Arus808]

well that video, was faked. the person took an existing video, and even added in "zooming" in the video as well (you can tell, as you get that "motion" sickness feeling when it does zoom in to focus on the top of the building; those who watch Pan & Scan versions of movies see this often).

Wow, you can even tell how they matted the fire up top into the video. there is a halo of badly done pixels around the fire itself and that the smoke doesn't match the smoke from that top fire.


IT really takes a sick individual to do something this .... sick

[BenBurch]

I have seen this in some Twofer posts by supporters of the Judy Woods "STAR WARS
DEATH RAY". It was done supposedly to show the death ray impacting the building
and cause the collapse. I concur it looks faked. Have to check over at ABOVE TOP
SECRET - believe it was posted several months back.

That's so low, the slime in the bottom of my rubbish bin is actually more appealing.

And; Happy Natal Anniversary Arus808!

[Mangoose]

Yeah, all doubts are removed....that vid is undoubtedly phoney. It's sad though because it seemingly defaces a rare south view of the tower burning. I still don't know if those smoke pimpling is faked as well, but I suspect so because all the photos I've looked at of the South Tower don't show this happening. And one hi-rez photo taken at 9:33 shows no fire at all at that spot (or smoke originating therefrom).

[CptColumbo]

Arus808,
Hauli La Hanau.

MEB-SG

[Max Photon]

* * *


WTC2's roof fire is not fake.


MAX-MIHOP can explain WTC2's roof fire.

You are looking at WTC2's hat-truss being heat-weakened with thermite.

The attack on the hat truss was done right at impact to attempt to mask the work.

I have long argued that the hat-truss must have been compromised, for what else could explain the kink in WTC2's upper block if the hat-truss were fully intact?


Max

* * *

[Unsecured Coins]

did you just make up a theory about what cause a fake fire?

[CurtC]

I don't think it's fake. The stills are obviously captured immediately after 175's impact - you can tell this by the fireball on the south (near) side having caused a still-rising smoke plume there. The fireball on the north side was much larger and higher:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2hit14.html

I think you're seeing the north side fireball rising above the tower on the far side of it, while the south side fireball has just gone out and the smoke is rising.

[Mangoose]

CurtC....The Hezakhani video and Carmen Taylor photos rule that out. Plus this is not a rising fireball but a static fire on the roof itself (if you view the video).

[gumboot]

To be honest all of the flame in that video looks fake. Compare, for example, the fires in WTC1 with other photos. All you ever really say was very narrow strips of flame between the floors and columns. In that video there's enormous balls of flame outside the building.

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

I don't think it's fake. The stills are obviously captured immediately after 175's impact - you can tell this by the fireball on the south (near) side having caused a still-rising smoke plume there. The fireball on the north side was much larger and higher:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2hit14.html

I think you're seeing the north side fireball rising above the tower on the far side of it, while the south side fireball has just gone out and the smoke is rising.No, seriously, it's a fake. :D It's worth seeing the video.

The fireball didn't hit that area, but what if it had? It didn't ignite the glass and aluminum facade that it did hit, and I can't stress enough that there was no fuel in that spot on the roof, much less anything that would make a 50-foot high, 75-foot wide inferno.

Again, no fireball, no fuel, no corroborating photos or videos, no corroborating eyewitness accounts, no investigator corroboration, no reason to believe it's real. And of course we don't see this video posted along with those that we know are real. I saw it at about the same time Mangoose did last year.

[A W Smith]

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=7MP5NU0W

How about the flurry of rapid, small smoke puffs above the entry hole. Does that look faked as well or could that have been from the video source? Or might the entire thing be phoney?


i cant open the file i downloaded.
WTCFire.flv

What opens it?

[Gravy]

There are free flash video players you can download. I haven't used them, so can't vouch for them.

[e^n]

The fire on the roof is not the only suspicious item in this video, the fire highlighted here seems very dubious, I haven't put any time into this analysis yet, just watched it at reduced speed:

http://xs121.xs.to/xs121/07455/wtc_fake_fire.jpg (http://xs.to)

edit: Upon a quick further analysis I see no immediate evidence of clipping, tracking or blending. I noticed earlier it was posited this may be shortly after impact, I would tend to agree although I have no immediate corroboration.

[Mangoose]

e^n....What makes that fire look particularly funny is the dark smoke that suddenly arises half-way through, in place of the grey smoke that had been rising. It just doesn't look natural. Here is another thing I noticed....the smoke on the east face of WTC2 is rising too fast. Compare it with other videos.....the rate at which the smoke rises makes me think there is a scaling issue here, along with the relative size of the fires here that exceed what was seen in real footage (aside from the northeastern corner of the building, which had very large external fires).

[leftysergeant]

The fires did reach rather high into the tower. It looks to me as though there were floors totally involved almost to the top.

[Mangoose]

leftysergeant: That's the other tower twenty minutes after the collapse of WTC2.

e^n: Another thing, look at the smoke pimples above the impact hole. There is a large one on the left that simply vanishes very quickly. The smoke doesn't trail off or dissipate...it just disappears suddenly.

Now, I would love to know how this fake was put together. It's really sophisticated. The smoke pimples....how was that effect created?

[leftysergeant]

I realized that after i uploaded it. Grabbed the wrong one out of my photo editing program.

The flame in the questioned pic may, however, have originated from these fires at the top of building, perhaps in a flash-over or back-draft.

[e^n]

leftysergeant: That's the other tower twenty minutes after the collapse of WTC2.

e^n: Another thing, look at the smoke pimples above the impact hole. There is a large one on the left that simply vanishes very quickly. The smoke doesn't trail off or dissipate...it just disappears suddenly.

Now, I would love to know how this fake was put together. It's really sophisticated. The smoke pimples....how was that effect created?

Honestly I am unsure. I am hesitant to declare this a fake as I didn't see anything specific when I looked at it quickly but even so it is very hard to believe. The smoke issue you mentioned leads me to think it is sped up and the smoke pimples above the impact hole may well have been windows breaking / being broken.

I didn't see any 'pimple' (ejection, what are we Judy Wood? :p) vanishing quickly but if the video is indeed sped up it would explain this also.

I will attempt to extract some meaning out of this but a thorough search for another copy of this video should be attempted. I have seen stills from exactly this angle a couple of times and so it should be something we can locate.

edit: I'd also like to point out that there have been a couple of fallacies and several leaps to rather shaky conclusions in this thread.
Correction: there is every sign of fakery and no sign that this is real.
This is not a sceptical position, this is a cynical position. There is some fairly shaky evidence that this is fake based on video analysis, some good questions as to the timeline and that is about it. While I am in no rush to declare this video real and unedited it is unfair and incorrect to claim that all signs point to fakery. There are few if any signs of a video ever being 'real' other than it depicting real world objects and real world events, if this is a fake it's been well done, to a much higher standard than any truther clip so far.

well that video, was faked. the person took an existing video, and even added in "zooming" in the video as well (you can tell, as you get that "motion" sickness feeling when it does zoom in to focus on the top of the building; those who watch Pan & Scan versions of movies see this often).
No, the zooming is real and optical. The reason I suspect for the 'motion sickness' feeling is simply that the video has been sped up by an unknown amount.
Wow, you can even tell how they matted the fire up top into the video. there is a halo of badly done pixels around the fire itself and that the smoke doesn't match the smoke from that top fire.
This is thoroughly incorrect, compression pays an extremely important part when trying to determine the credibility of any video taken from the internet. Compression tends to cause 'badly done pixels' around areas which are changing rapidly or are different than their environment. Flames match both of these criteria and pixel analysis of a compressed video is prone to large errors.

You are looking at WTC2's hat-truss being heat-weakened with thermite.

The attack on the hat truss was done right at impact to attempt to mask the work.
Unlikely, what hat truss elements could be being affected here, and why would thermite produce such massive flames in only one part of the upper section? If you can provide specific evidence giving us good reason to believe this is so I am willing to embrace it but I suspect your reasoning lies in inference to the best explanation while remaining within the conspiracy mindset. I do still have hope for you Max :)

[Gravy]

I realized that after i uploaded it. Grabbed the wrong one out of my photo editing program.

The flame in the questioned pic may, however, have originated from these fires at the top of building, perhaps in a flash-over or back-draft.No, that didn't happen. The flames in the questioned video are fake, for the reasons given above. If you disagree with those reasons, please state why. I recommend watching the video first, and reading NIST NCSTAR 1-5A.

[Gravy]

This is not a sceptical position, this is a cynical position.Sorry, but I have:

1) Reviewed this video in the past. Unlike most people posting here, I have seen this video, and seen it several times.
2) Read the entire NIST report and studied the building construction, the potential pathways for fire, and the actual conditions and fire progression in WTC 2.
3) Read hundreds of eyewitness accounts.
4) Seen hundreds of relevant photos, many of them unpublished.
5) Seen probably every relevant video that's in the public domain.

I have examined the evidence. My position is a well-informed one.

[Mangoose]

The hypothesis about the video being sped up is an interesting one, but the problem there is the audio ... which is not sped up and which portrays itself as either live or near live ("a few minutes ago", "now", i.e. before the collapse). It would be unusual for a video broadcast at the time to have been sped up.

[e^n]

Sorry, but I have:

1) Reviewed this video in the past. Unlike most people posting here, I have seen this video, and seen it several times.
2) Read the entire NIST report and studied the building construction, the potential pathways for fire, and the actual conditions and fire progression in WTC 2.
3) Read hundreds of eyewitness accounts.
4) Seen hundreds of relevant photos, many of them unpublished.
5) Seen probably every relevant video that's in the public domain.

I have examined the evidence. My position is a well-informed one.

I have not seen this video before, and I am certainly not going to pretend that my research into 911 related issues is as extensive as yours. However I was picking more on your actual post than your point. Yes this video may very well be faked, and I am very much aware that there seems to be no evidence for it in still photographs, NISTs report on fire progression or any mention anywhere but this video. However the explanation you gave was brief and relied on the person reading it trusting your research into relevant areas.

Perhaps this is more of a gripe than a serious criticism, but we should endeavour to post sources and give reasons wherever possible. I was never claiming your position wasn't well informed, simply that the position you presented was not sceptical (to the outside observer).

[e^n]

The hypothesis about the video being sped up is an interesting one, but the problem there is the audio ... which is not sped up and which portrays itself as either live or near live ("a few minutes ago", "now", i.e. before the collapse). It would be unusual for a video broadcast at the time to have been sped up.

For some reason the copy I have seems devoid of audio, this shouldn't present any serious problem however as splitting audio and video tracks is trivial. Unless there is audio specifically mentioning things that are being filmed then I don't see the contradiction?

[Gravy]

I've uploaded an MP4 video here: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTCFire.mp4

Still looks like a clear fake to me, and I haven't seen an explanation of why it could be real.

[Gravy]

I have not seen this video before, and I am certainly not going to pretend that my research into 911 related issues is as extensive as yours. However I was picking more on your actual post than your point. Yes this video may very well be faked, and I am very much aware that there seems to be no evidence for it in still photographs, NISTs report on fire progression or any mention anywhere but this video. However the explanation you gave was brief and relied on the person reading it trusting your research into relevant areas.

Perhaps this is more of a gripe than a serious criticism, but we should endeavour to post sources and give reasons wherever possible. I was never claiming your position wasn't well informed, simply that the position you presented was not sceptical (to the outside observer).I understand, but I had listed my concerns in post 9. I love leftysergeant, but I get testy with him when (IMO) he puts wild guesses before evidence. The post of mine that you responded to was a reply to one of those guesses.

[e^n]

I've uploaded an MP4 video here: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTCFire.mp4

Still looks like a clear fake to me, and I haven't seen an explanation of why it could be real.

This is actually quite a low quality rip, here's a higher quality conversion which looks even more suspicious!

http://911db.org/WTCFire.avi

I managed to get sound working too and must say, it sounds like a Brit with a cheap microphone rather than a genuine reporter.

I understand, but I had listed my concerns in post 9. I love leftysergeant, but I get testy with him when (IMO) he puts wild guesses before evidence. The post of mine that you responded to was a reply to one of those guesses.
It is no problem, I was simply venting some of my frustration :)

In a way, I do feel that we should provide a better 'public image' to the truthers because I think a majority of them are simply caught up in a mindset which has led them down logical paths they will later regret. I know I had made certain assumptions and errors in thinking with the way I looked at 'the official story' before I started participating at LC.

[Shrinker]

To be honest all of the flame in that video looks fake. Compare, for example, the fires in WTC1 with other photos. All you ever really say was very narrow strips of flame between the floors and columns. In that video there's enormous balls of flame outside the building.

-Gumboot

Sorry I missed this thread earlier. Gumboot is right IMO, the whole thing is fake. The creator appears to have taken a high quality still (note some of the smoke isn't moving), added their own animated smoke and fire on top, then added the shakycam zoom-in zoom-out afterwards.

Before assuming malicious intent, I'd explore the idea that this is just some misguided visual effects amateur showing off, a bit like that old photoshopped picture of the tourist with the plane in the background.

If it was a twoofer, we'd see more elements designed to support the twoofer mythology, ie no flames at all, thermite sparks, explosions, a giant countdown projected on the towers etc.. With its added infernos this one seems to support the OS.

[Mangoose]

Excellent observation about the smoke that doesn't move throughout the clip....note when the images are compared with each other:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5185/frames1ph5.jpg

[Max Photon]

* * *

e^n,

You consistently demonstrate admirable qualities.

Kudos to you.


Max

* * *

[Apollo20]

I am not convinced that there was no liquid fuel stored at or near the roof of WTC 1 or 2... (Did anyone see the remake of the movie KING KONG? I know this is Hollywood, but there is a famous scene on the roof of the Twin Towers.... doesn't KK hurl a fuel tank at some snipers?)

Anyway, here is some data I have from Toxics Targeting about "aboveground" fuel at the WTC (excluding WTC 7) .... so where were these fuel tanks located?

275 Gallons/Aboveground; 1,2 or 4 fuel oil; WTC 1; PANY/NJ; Ref No:2-293563

275 Gallons/Aboveground; 1,2 or 4 fuel oil; WTC 1; PANY/NJ; Ref No:2-293563

275 Gallons/Aboveground; 1,2 or 4 fuel oil; WTC 1; PANY/NJ; Ref No:2-293563

1080 Gallons/Aboveground; 1,2 or 4 fuel oi; WTC 1; PANY/NJ; Ref No:2-293563

10,000 Gallons/Aboveground; 1,2 or 4 fuel oil; WTC 5; PANY/NJ Ref No:2-604231

10,000 Gallons/Aboveground; 1,2 or 4 fuel oil; WTC 5; PANY/NJ Ref No:2-604231

10,000 Gallons/Aboveground; Diesel; WTC 2; Bell Atlantic Ref No:2-344737

275 Gallons/Aboveground; Diesel; WTC 2; Bell Atlantic Ref No:2-344737

275 Gallons/Aboveground; Diesel; WTC 2; Bell Atlantic Ref No:2-344737

275 Gallons/Aboveground; Diesel; WTC 2; Bell Atlantic Ref No:2-344737

100 Gallons/Aboveground; Diesel; WTC 2; Bell Atlantic Ref No:2-344737

[BenBurch]

Where were the HVAC exhausts for the top of the building?

There was a lot of gaseous fuel in that building, and it would not surprise me to have a flare form at the top of the building.

Firefighters would tell you this was unremarkable.

[AMTMAN]

* * *


WTC2's roof fire is not fake.


MAX-MIHOP can explain WTC2's roof fire.

You are looking at WTC2's hat-truss being heat-weakened with thermite.

The attack on the hat truss was done right at impact to attempt to mask the work.

I have long argued that the hat-truss must have been compromised, for what else could explain the kink in WTC2's upper block if the hat-truss were fully intact?


Max

* * *

Could you please tell us what would the point be in doing this?

[BenBurch]

Max!!!

No. In my opinion, the hat-truss is what doomed the building. If it HAD been broken, the building might have stood much longer.

[Pardalis]

Doesn't the cloud of smoke emanating from the WTC 2 wound seem kind of dodgy as well? The little puffs?

[Shrinker]

Yes, all the moving stuff is fake. See above.

[Mangoose]

The little puffs are not seen in any other footage of South Tower, one of them seems to vanish without trailing smoke, and a 9:33 hi-rez photo shows no fire or smoke from that location.

[negativ]

i cant open the file i downloaded.
WTCFire.flv

What opens it?

The most excellent (and free) VLC player (http://www.videolan.org/vlc/features.html) plays FLV, and pretty much everything else.

[BenBurch]

VLC is Awesome. I use it instead of Quicktime usually.

[Pardalis]

Yes, all the moving stuff is fake. See above.

Yeah, good call. No doubt now. Both you and Mangoose are tough skeptic SOBs. :D

[Malamule]

I loaded the movie clip into premiere and played with it back and forth. The fire on the south tower roof is actually the fire in the north tower flipped horizontally. It's the same width, angle, color and burning the same. The only reason it's not identical is that it was clipped from before or after what is shown in that zoom on the north tower.

[Max Photon]

The most excellent (and free) VLC player (http://www.videolan.org/vlc/features.html) plays FLV, and pretty much everything else.

Negativ,

What a Positiv contribution! Thanks!

Do you have a recommendation for downloading videos from the internet so that they can be viewed, and stills abstracted, using a program like Virtualdub (freeware)?

I use Vdownloader (freeware), but it only works on about half of the videos I want.

Any input from you or anyone else would be most appreciated.

Max

* * *

[Max Photon]

Max!!!

No. In my opinion, the hat-truss is what doomed the building. If it HAD been broken, the building might have stood much longer.


'splain.


* * *

[Max Photon]

I've seen the clip before. It is a fake. How would the fire get up there? No elevator shafts go to the roof and no duct work goes from the impact zone to that fire area.

What would be burning, causing 50-foot high flames? There is no fuel there. It's an observation deck. Concrete, steel, aluminum.

Why does that fire not appear in any other photos or videos?

Why was it not reported in NIST's detailed account of the WTC 2 impact and fire progression?

Just a sad fake.


I love the logic:

"I can't explain the fire, so it's fake. (And remember, I'm a inglich mager.)"


* * *

[HawksFan]

Actually, more like "I can't explain the fire as there is no logical explanation for the fire to be there and only be viewed by one camera, therefore I must conclude that it is faked."

[gumboot]

Negativ,

What a Positiv contribution! Thanks!

Do you have a recommendation for downloading videos from the internet so that they can be viewed, and stills abstracted, using a program like Virtualdub (freeware)?

I use Vdownloader (freeware), but it only works on about half of the videos I want.

Any input from you or anyone else would be most appreciated.

Max

* * *


I use a firefox plugin which lets you download any embedded media, and then use a program called "Super" which can convert it to pretty much any format you can imagine. For any sort of media editing/grabbing frames I use Avid Xpress Pro HD, and for audio I use Adobe Audition. Adobe After Effects if I need to do any compositing.

Having said all that, if I need to do anything serious my friend will get me into the Post Production house where he works so I can use Avid Film Composer hardware.

-Gumboot

[CurtC]

I use a firefox plugin which lets you download any embedded media, and then use a program called "Super" which can convert it to pretty much any format you can imagine.

I use SUPER to take videos I've grabbed off of YouTube and format them for my Blackberry, and to re-format the big-ass files that my digital camera makes for movies.

But it has to be the worst user interface of any piece of software I have ever seen.

[BenBurch]

Negativ,

What a Positiv contribution! Thanks!

Do you have a recommendation for downloading videos from the internet so that they can be viewed, and stills abstracted, using a program like Virtualdub (freeware)?

I use Vdownloader (freeware), but it only works on about half of the videos I want.

Any input from you or anyone else would be most appreciated.

Max

* * *


Max, VLC has a snapshot menu item that does what you want!

(And it will play the stream from the network without downloading it, too.)

[Max Photon]

* * *


Thanks for the video input guys! I really appreciate it.

Any other suggestions (while we're at it) are also welcomed.


ETA: I'd also like to ask if anyone knows how to cut and paste from the encrypted NCSTARS.

* * *

[Arus808]

i cant open the file i downloaded.
WTCFire.flv

What opens it?

Find the Satsuki Video codec, and download the Windows Media Player Classic (-- you'll actually Like WMPC alot better than WMP)
http://www.afterdawn.com/software/video_software/video_players/media_player_classic.cfm

[AMTMAN]

* * *


WTC2's roof fire is not fake.


MAX-MIHOP can explain WTC2's roof fire.

You are looking at WTC2's hat-truss being heat-weakened with thermite.

The attack on the hat truss was done right at impact to attempt to mask the work.

I have long argued that the hat-truss must have been compromised, for what else could explain the kink in WTC2's upper block if the hat-truss were fully intact?


Max

* * *

I,m still wondering what the point in doing this would be.

[Max Photon]

* * *

I do not know whether the video of the fire on the roof of WTC2 is real or fake.

However, do bear in mind that IF the WTCs were brought down by controlled-demolition, THEN if makes perfect sense - as I have mentioned elsewhere - to expect that demolition planners would attempt to hide, mask, or cloak demolition work behind peak emotional moments.

The impact of 175 into WTC2 is certainly a peak emotion moment.


Furthermore, I have long thought that WTC2's hat-truss was compromised before the collapse initiation. Two indicators of this are the listing of WTC2 as seen in the Amanzafar photos, and the action of the upper block after collapse initiation.

I have looked for evidence in photos and videos of fire or smoke or ejections at the top of the tower, and never seen any.

Needless to say, it is intriguing to have this video come to the fore.


I recommend people follow e^n's approach of giving the video a fair shake before dismissing it out of hand.

Just because it doesn't seem likely or possible to you now that there was a fire on the roof does not mean that the video is fake. (However, the video may be fake.)


One last point. It may seem odd that flames just suddenly appear, and then just as suddenly disappear. However, bear in mind that NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C describes many episodes on the facade of WTC2 where vigorous flames suddenly appear and then just as suddenly disappear, in sharp deviation from standard building fire behavior.

Max

* * *

[Gravy]

...in sharp deviation from standard building fire behavior.Wrong. The NIST report says no such thing, and in fact several possible reasons are given for the various flare-ups, which are not unusual in building fires. Once again reality intrudes on your bizarre fantasy world.

Please stop this behavior, Max. Your ideas are irrational to the extreme.

[BenBurch]

'splain.


* * *

What it was supposed to do was take a regional failure in the building, say one or two columns out, the wall breeched on one side, all things they thought might possibly happen, and redistribute that load onto the other columns, holding some of the building in suspension rather than compression at that point, and it might have done that fine. They did not design it to handle the sort of non-local failures that did occur, and it has been shown to have made the situation worse with that sort of damage by not distributing the load equally; It raised certain columns to failure level loads and when those failed, and the load redistributed, it did that to another column.

[Gravy]

What it was supposed to do was take a regional failure in the building, say one or two columns out, the wall breeched on one side, all things they thought might possibly happen, and redistribute that load onto the other columns, holding some of the building in suspension rather than compression at that point, and it might have done that fine. They did not design it to handle the sort of non-local failures that did occur, and it has been shown to have made the situation worse with that sort of damage by not distributing the load equally; It raised certain columns to failure level loads and when those failed, and the load redistributed, it did that to another column.
This isn't the conclusion that NIST and other investigators reached. They say that while the hat trusses weren't designed to play such a role, they did distribute loads in a way that allowed the towers to remain standing longer than if no hat truss had been used. Some relevant info:

Role of the Hat Truss System
The purpose of the hat truss was to support gravity and wind loads on the antenna. It was not designed to resist lateral forces on the towers, and, in an undamaged state, it did not have a significant role in carrying gravity loads. Lateral loads due to wind were distributed to the framed-tube system via diaphragm action of the floor system. The hat truss was connected to each perimeter face at only four points, all at the same level (at the 108th floor just below the concrete floor slab). The 47 core columns were connected to diagonal elements, heavier transfer beams, or smaller beam elements in the hat truss. Most of the core columns extended to the roof level, but four core columns, which were only minimally connected to the hat truss, terminated at floor 110. The hat truss provided minimal redistribution of loads (less than 10 percent) from perimeter columns to core columns. Most of the load redistributed due to aircraft impact damage occurred on the external face through vierendeel action. Source (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixq.pdf)


2.3.8 Hat Trusses
A series of diagonal members together with the building columns and floor members formed hat trusses between the 107th floor and the roof in WTC 1 and WTC 2. Six trusses ran parallel to the long direction, and eight trusses ran parallel to the short direction of the core.

According to the 1995 Structural Integrity Inspection report that was written by LERA, “the hat trusses...control individual column expansion and contraction due to uneven column temperatures” (LERA 1995). Additionally, the hat trusses in WTC 1 provided stability for the 362 ft tall TV mast that was centered on the top of that tower. The hat trusses in both buildings were designed to support one large mast or four smaller towers near the perimeter of the core region. The 1995 report also noted that the horizontal members of the hat trusses were composite with the concrete floor slabs, which made the concrete floor slabs a vital component of the hat trusses.

Design calculations for the different types of trusses that were used are contained in SHCR (1969). Members in the trusses were designed for axial forces or axial forces plus bending moments due to the combined effects of gravity loads (including the weight of the TV mast) and wind loads. Typical calculations for a truss running in the north-south direction in WTC 1 are shown in Fig. 2–27. These calculations are representative of the allowable stress methods used to proportion the members in the trusses. As can be seen from the figure, the AISC Specification (AISC 1963b) was used to proportion the members for the design loads contained on the first page of the calculations. No calculations were found that showed how the trusses controlled column expansion and contraction due to uneven temperatures, as discussed in the 1995 report by LERA. (NIST NCSTAR 1-1A p. 55)


NARRATOR: And in a prescient decision, Robertson placed an additional support system called a "hat truss" on the top floors of the buildings. By connecting the interior core columns to the stronger exterior columns, the hat truss helped the severely damaged core remain standing.

SHYAM SUNDER (National Institute of Standards and Technology): The hat truss prevented earlier failure of the core of the building, which contained all of the stairwells. Had the core failed earlier, there would have been much larger loss of life than we actually saw on 9/11. Source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3311_wtc.html)


Arup fire study (http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:ESLxDiorsYcJ:www.arup.com/DOWNLOADBANK/download353.pdf):

We have analysed models with and without a hat truss at the top of a tall-building and found that - a hat truss significantly improves stability in multiple floor fires. In the image above, the Hat Truss shows clear redistribution from outer columns to the core (primarily the outer core columns). NIST have also observed load transfer via the hat truss. Such issues could become the basis for future fire-related structural design guidance.

[BenBurch]

Gravy, I'll try to find the study I was looking at where the hat truss became a part of the problem set rather than the solution set, but I am aware that this is not mainstream. I think this is likely so because my intuition about the dynamics (dangerous in these cases, I know) has it becoming a first class lever once there is enough structural failure and of course the forces on the fulcrum are going to be double the applied force of the input, and the fulcrum fails as a result and the force transfers to another fulcrum, and that fails and so on.

So I'm probably wrong, but I need to smack my head against the problem some more before that will get through my very thick skull.

[Max Photon]

Wrong. The NIST report says no such thing, and in fact several possible reasons are given for the various flare-ups, which are not unusual in building fires. Once again reality intrudes on your bizarre fantasy world.

Please stop this behavior, Max. Your ideas are irrational to the extreme.


Gravy,

Although your disdain for me is palpable, I have a favor to ask so that I may debate you on more equal terms.

Is there a way to cut and paste from the encrypted NCSTARs, so that I may abstract quotes?

If you or anyone else could tell me how, I would be most appreciative.

Thanks.

Max

* * *

[Arus808]

max, the ncstars are not encrypted.

[LashL]

There's no magic to it, Max. The documents are not encrypted. Just use the "select" tool.

[Max Photon]

* * *

Thanks for your responses.

Bear with me.

I have NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf) downloaded on my hard disk, and open in Acrobe Reader 8.

When I use the Select tool to highlight a paragraph, and then go to Edit (or right click), Copy/Cut/Paste are all deactivated.

Am I missing something?

ETA: Also, if I click on Window, it says at the bottom of the menu that the document is SECURED.

Does that help?

ETA2: Also, File > Properties > Security says Content Copying: Not Allowed

* * *

[Mangoose]

Maybe see if you can convert it to Word in a program like this:

http://www.download.com/ABBYY-PDF-Transformer/3000-9694_4-10577855.html

[Max Photon]

* * *

Mangoose,

I don't believe the various PDF to Word conversion programs can handle the 128 bit encryption.

Max

* * *

[pomeroo]

I love the logic:

"I can't explain the fire, so it's fake. (And remember, I'm a inglich mager.)"


* * *


Actually, you hate logic. Observe the distinction you blur: Mark says that the fire on the roof is inexplicable--it can't be explained. You not-very-subtly transform that statement to something entirely different, i.e., he is unable to explain the fire, although there really is an explanation. Nice try, Doc.

[Arus808]

* * *

Mangoose,

I don't believe the various PDF to Word conversion programs can handle the 128 bit encryption.

Max

* * *

max, for the umpteenth time, there IS no encryption

[Max Photon]

max, for the umpteenth time, there IS no encryption


Arus808,

I didn't know umpteen meant two. :)

Could you humor me, and go to NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf), and cut and paste the first paragraph here on this thread.

And are you just using Acrobat Reader?

Thanks for your patience.

Max

* * *

[Arus808]

9.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the fire behaviors observed in World Trade Center (WTC) 2 during the period following the impact of United Airlines Flight 175 at 9:02:59 a.m. until the tower collapsed at 9:58:59 a.m. The fires had very different behaviors than those observed for WTC 1. In general, there was much less fire spread, and the total area of the outer façade where fires were observed was much smaller. For this reason, the discussion will focus on general characteristics and major changes in fire distribution instead of the details of the fire spread as in Chapter 8 describing the fires in WTC 1.



Sorry about the formatting, for some reason, my copy and paste to this reply box doesn't format the original text correctly


eta: im using adobe acrobat reader 7.0

and btw Max, the file isn't encrypted. Its asking for a password to ACCESS the text and photos within the document. That is not encrypted. Its a feature of PDF file distribution to further protect the original author's intellectually property rights. That is why you can't copy and paste the text.

However, there are tools out there that will brute force attack the document with numerous passwords in order to access the text and photos.


Encrypting a PDF file would be so that YOU never would see the text within it (this is how E-Novels are published) - without obtaining a key or password and key in order to unlock it.

[Gravy]

If it's a short passage, just retype it. If it's a long passage and the text hasn't changed from the draft versions, use those. The drafts aren't copy protected. I cannot copy the passage that Arus reproduced above with Acrobat Reader or Acrobat Pro. However, I can copy it in the draft version.

Or use a screenshot tool and turn the passage into an image.

[LashL]

..

[Max Photon]

* * *

Thanks Gravy, I appreciate the input.

Another approach that I've tried on the final drafts is to print a section that I want, and then use OCR (optical character recognition) software to turn it into a .txt file.

This works fairly well, but then you have to go through and make sure i's , l's and 1's aren't muddled.


But now I am really curious how Arus808 did it.

Arus808, did you really use the Select tool in Acrobat Reader 7 to abstract that text from the final draft? (What a stud.)

Again, thanks for your patience.

Max

ETA: deleted PS.

* * *

[WildCat]

Sorry about the formatting, for some reason, my copy and paste to this reply box doesn't format the original text correctly
If you paste it into notepad first you lose all the formatting data, then copy and paste it back to your reply.

eta: im using adobe acrobat reader 7.0

and btw Max, the file isn't encrypted. Its asking for a password to ACCESS the text and photos within the document. That is not encrypted. Its a feature of PDF file distribution to further protect the original author's intellectually property rights. That is why you can't copy and paste the text.
So, what was the password? That has been driving me nuts with the NIST reports!

[Alferd_Packer]

The final reports are locked against copying, the draft versions are not.

[Arus808]

So, what was the password? That has been driving me nuts with the NIST reports!


dont know.

[Max Photon]

* * *


Then how did you do it?


* * *

[Arus808]

sorry, I can't say. I work with digital publications, and unfortunately, its a proprietary plugin for Adobe Reader (contracts that are sent to us are in pdf format).

max, you were told how you can copy and paste from the NSCTARs . The DRAFT versions are not password protected.

[Max Photon]

* * *

Sometimes we must go a long way out of our way to go a short distance.


Thanks everyone for your help. I appreciate it.


Cheers!

Max


* * *