Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Why were there squibs coming from the world trade center towers as they fell?
Executive summary
Two competing explanations have been offered for the jets or “squibs” of dust seen ejecting from the Twin Towers as they fell: critics argue those puffs look like explosive charges (a controlled‑demolition claim), while major investigative bodies and mainstream outlets conclude the waves are consistent with gravity‑driven collapse and debris ejection; the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics rejected the demolition theory and found no corroborating evidence of planted explosives [1] [2]. Independent researchers and online archives have cataloged the squibs and argued their timing and speed demand explanation [3] [4].
1. Early sightings: what eyewitness video and researchers documented
Within minutes of the collapses, TV and amateur video showed repeated, localized jets of dust and debris shooting out from lower floors ahead of the main descending rubble cloud; researchers who have cataloged footage call these “squibs,” sometimes noting regular intervals and high apparent velocities [3] [4]. Groups that preserve 9/11 media have continued to surface images and clips that emphasize these puffs — material that conspiracy proponents often point to as anomalous [5] [4].
2. The controlled‑demolition interpretation and its advocates
Proponents of the demolition theory argue the squibs resemble the outward blasts seen in engineered implosions and therefore are evidence of pre‑placed explosives; blogs and research pages lay out “theory C” explicitly asserting that squibs are best explained by explosive charges [6] [4]. High‑profile skeptics and some engineers have publicly questioned whether impact and fire alone can produce the observed ejections, keeping the controversy alive in media and online [7] [8].
3. The mainstream science and engineering response
Major investigations led by organizations like NIST — and journalism outlets such as Popular Mechanics — examined the collapse mechanics and concluded the towers fell from fire‑and‑impact damage in gravity‑driven progressive collapse, finding no corroborating evidence for controlled demolition or planted explosives [1] [2]. Popular Mechanics specifically addressed the squibs question, noting experts explain side puffs as debris and air being forced out by the falling mass rather than by timed charges [2].
4. Physical mechanisms that can produce side jets without explosives
Analyses offered by scientists and engineers point to several non‑explosive causes: compressed air and pulverized concrete squeezing out of window openings as floor systems collapse, debris traveling down shafts and bursting through facades, and localized collections of stored materials or structural failures venting under pressure — mechanisms consistent with observed dust puffs (explanatory models are discussed in NIST‑led and engineering summaries referenced by mainstream debunking) [1] [2]. Independent commentators cataloging footage also propose elevator‑shaft pressure pulses and cascading floor failures as alternative explanations [6] [3].
5. Where the evidence is strongest — and where gaps remain
NIST and engineering communities provide the most systematic, peer‑reviewed examinations and concluded that impact + fire + structural damage explains the collapse and the observed phenomena; they explicitly state they found no evidence of explosives [1]. At the same time, critics point to features in video — timing, regularity, and apparent location of some squibs — as “unexplained anomalies,” and web archives continue to promote that interpretation; those criticisms emphasize perceived gaps in public data and chain‑of‑custody for physical samples [3] [6] [9].
6. How to weigh competing claims and the limits of available reporting
Assessments should weigh methodological rigor: NIST’s multi‑year forensic investigation and peer review carry institutional weight, while independent web pages and blogs compile video anomalies but lack consensus validation [1] [4]. Available sources do not mention, for example, any public, authenticated forensic trace of explosive residues that would prove pre‑placed charges; NIST reported no corroborating evidence for such hypotheses [1]. Conversely, proponents of the demolition view point to perceived visual anomalies as warranting further study — a claim that remains largely contested [6] [7].
7. Bottom line for readers
The visible squibs are real and were widely observed and documented [3] [4]. Mainstream engineering and investigative authorities conclude those puffs are consistent with collapse dynamics from impact and fire and found no evidence of controlled demolition [1] [2]. However, independent researchers and conspiracy proponents continue to flag the squibs as suspicious, citing video patterns and timing; these disagreements persist partly because video interpretation can be subjective and because some researchers say not all phenomena were fully settled in public reports [3] [6] [9]. Readers should treat video anomalies as prompts for questions rather than definitive proof of explosives, and rely on methodical forensic reports for definitive claims — which, to date, do not support the controlled‑demolition explanation [1].