New York Building Collapse - Update 2

Summary

The presenter reviews CBS surveillance footage of the Brooklyn building collapse. He says the footage appears to show the north-side exterior wall dropping before rotating outward, which he interprets as evidence that the building’s foundation wall lost stability before the rest of the structure collapsed.

He discusses how potential professional negligence would be assessed. Engineers are judged against the standard of care ordinarily expected of professionals working under similar conditions, he explains—not by whether they would personally have taken additional precautions. Whether the project’s engineers met that standard would ultimately be determined through legal proceedings and expert testimony. He also notes that New York Attorney General Letitia James has announced a criminal investigation, while observing that comparable U.S. disasters have often resulted in civil rather than criminal consequences.

Using a preconstruction survey provided by viewer Jim, the presenter points to visible cracks and separations in the collapsed building’s masonry. The survey, dated March 5, 2026, was limited to exterior areas. He questions whether anyone sought interior access and argues that the recorded cracks should have informed the project’s monitoring and protection plans. In his view, the excavation plans were prepared earlier and apparently were not revised to account for the survey findings. He also criticizes a vibration limit he considers too permissive and monitoring of the neighboring building only once a week.

The presenter focuses on the excavation support plans for the new building next door. They show shoring and bracing around much of the excavation, but, he says, no apparent underpinning, bracing, or shoring along the side beside the building that collapsed. He questions the apparent reliance on that building’s cellar wall to support the structure and adjacent ground during excavation. The plans identify a rubble foundation wall, a type he describes as potentially weaker than reinforced concrete.

He also asks whether the contractor excavated deeper than the permitted depth and whether the engineer assessed the cellar wall’s actual condition and strength. Although test pits were reportedly required, he says the available details do not describe or photograph the wall’s condition.

The presenter argues that the building’s prior violations or poor condition would not, by themselves, establish why it collapsed. The key questions, in his view, are whether work at the neighboring site destabilized it and whether those responsible adequately protected it. He assigns responsibility questions to the project’s engineers, contractor, developer, and potentially city oversight.

He also raises concerns about the city’s permitting and inspection practices, including a hold-harmless agreement in the permit package that he says appears intended to limit the city’s financial liability. He notes an apparent overlap in surnames between the agreement’s signatory and notary, but says he does not know whether they are related.

The video presents these matters as questions and concerns, not findings of fault. The presenter says he will continue following the investigation.

Presenters and contributors

• Casey Jones — Presenter; identified by the channel context as a professional engineer.
• Jim — Channel viewer who provided the preconstruction survey report.