Support 911Blogger


VIDEO -- Twin Towers: Demolished For Effect

Powerful new video features strong evidence for controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.

Please spread this video around. It can and should go viral.

Digg it here.

digg_url = 'http://digg.com/politics/Powerful_new_9_11_video_may_change_your_mind_about_controlled_demolition';

I Dugg it

I dugg it. Excellent short video.

Ditto!

Excellent Compilation! I am sending the URL to all I know.

This video too, blasts can be heard

From -0.09s to -0.06s in this video you can hear a quick succession of regularly timed blasts. As the collapse gets down to the level of the firefighters a succession of separate and regularly timed blasts can be distinguished.

From the Nadet Brothers film.

The Audio In One Clip Is Faked

The interviews are very interesting. Yet the audio of one clip of WTC 2's collapse (at the -8:35 mark) was dubbed into the clip, probably with the intent to mislead the viewer into thinking that there were explosion sounds during the collapse. (At least within that particular clip.) And the 'Oh my God' declaration was never part of the original audio.

I've seen this clip elsewhere and unfortunately it continues to midlead people.

The same clip with the genuine audio can be seen at 1:28 seconds of this rather poor video production of mine:

I dugg it

"Improbable Collapse" is a DVD which can be legally copied and distributed. It focuses entirely on controlled demolition. Most of the YouTube video has the same footage. I use controlled demolition as the door opener with 9/11 skeptics. http://www.improbablecollapse.com/

For Researchers:

Someone tipped me off that on the financial channel they showed another plane "guiding" the 2nd plane into the towers live on tv on September 11th. I'm not verifying this but I'm passing this on to any researchers who want to dig this up and verify it.

If you can leave a comment

If you can leave a comment please do - there bury brigade is already monitoring the post and is digging down comments as soon as they appear - so digg up comments you agree with and lets get this video on the "Hot Diggs" list under upcoming - when it hits there it gets much more visibility and counters the bury brigades who keep it off the list...
--
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month

The still at 5:32 to 5:33 . . .

The still at 5:32 to 5:33 was, if I recall correctly, previously identified as firefighters around a work light. Anyone close enough to a radiant heat source hot enough to produce that kind of glow would be incinerated in short order.

Thanks

Thanks, wasn't aware of that. The pic was in the original video I spliced the segment from. Not sure if I can remove it now.

Kickass!

I know I'll get some minus

I know I'll get some minus points for this but I have to ask how many videos do we need to understand that the 3 WTC buildings on 9/11 were brought down by controlled demolitions? We've all seen countless footage that demonstrates very clearly that the 3 buildings had to have been rigged with pre-planted explosives at least weeks prior to 9/11. With all the "new" footage that keeps coming out, aren't we just beating a dead horse when we should already be planning non-violent street actions, ala WeAreChange in order to wake up others? Seems to me threads like these are not much more than preaching to the choir.

Not really

The intent of this video is to put the best points forward in a compressed format for the busy person. Has everyone you asked to watch 911 Mysteries done so?

This video seems to be the best I have seen in accomplishing the mission of being nearly a sound bite for the case for controlled demolition.

I certainly agree that the activism needs to continue to rise and I applaud the efforts of everyone there. However, we aren't done educating the public and need to continue to refine the message. I agree we are getting near saturation to a degree on that point.

ok, I see

I never looked at it from a "soundbite" point of view, which of course is the new, indoctrinated language of our rotting society. Thanks for the perspective! We definitely do need ways to reach those among us whose attention span lasts no longer than 7 to 15 seconds at a given time.

Street actions are crucial,

Street actions are crucial, certainly. I personally am taking part in actions on 10/27 and 11/11. Developing better tools for the infowar seems the best use of my time otherwise.

The video was intended to be as beginner-friendly as possible. It is posted here not to preach to the choir, but to share a strong sequence of video evidence others can use to, say, capitalize on the increased public interest in controlled demolition recently thanks to WeAreCHANGE LA.

___________________________
http://www.changemaryland.org
http://www.truthaction.org

Two Thumbs Up!

I added it to my Bill Maher collection - all videos found here . . thanks!

http://www.alexjonesfan.com/realtime/20071023_cnn_billthrowsouthecklers.htm

Great work!

I just submited it to reddit
http://reddit.com/info/5z2hp/comments/
Vote it up!

"911 was an Inside Job"

Thanks folks... the bury

Thanks folks... the bury brigade got beaten back. Video is currently #1 on the upcoming political news list, meaning it's about 10 or 20 diggs away from going popular and getting tons of traffic.

http://digg.com/politics/upcoming/most

___________________________
http://www.changemaryland.org
http://www.truthaction.org

Excellent

A different view

This video will make more people doubt the official theory.
If that can help lead to a new, real, independent investigation, that would be a good thing.
But to someone a bit more critical, there's a lot of ' looked like ' , sounded like ' and ' as if '
going on . If you counter that with easily refuted stuff like the freefall idea, and the
' everything was pulverized in mid air ' , I don't know.

I have a reputation here for being critical of this particular hypothesis.
I just do not see the hard evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
After viewing this video, I remain unconvinced.

Will anyone discuss that with me, or must my questions be buried under the usual avalanche of down votes ?

Sure, I'll give it a shot

First off I must concur that if I was skeptical of 911 Truth, this video would not have convinced me either. Specifically, molten metal was featured, but not the factoids that illustrate how anomalous it would be for it to exist (ie; temperatures needed etc).

Now, what would you like to discuss (I am not expert and invite third and fourth parties to assist me in asnwering this person's polite questions)?

Show "reply to syr mordryd part 1" by haverman

reply to part1

I have to say right off the bat that it is not a good idea and wont be seen as polite to have made such a long post. Computers arent easy on the eyes and who has time to read it all? A Paragraph is fine. You know why? Because each topic can be covered in paragraphs and all it takes is one chink in the armour of the Official Conspiracy Theory to disprove it. So a scroll isn't neccesary.

OK, Your 1st objection is to the interpretation of visual evidence. Fine, let's leave it at that. I see black. You see white. Noone is asking for a new investigation because the WTC buildings didn't look or feel right. It's alot deeper than that.

Ok, you made this comment: "I don’t believe ( parts of ) the towers could ever topple or fall over sideways whilst maintaining their structural integrity. They were never built to do that. I don’t see the towers coming down at freefall speed, and they simply do not.
In fact, the freefall idea is pivotal to the CD hypothesis, because it would prove there is no resistance below, etc"

Cant you see, that if the buildings fell over sideways (the tops toppling), that there would be something left over underneathe? And as for freefall, you have to look into Newton's Laws and watch the videos of all three buildings again, then do the one missisipi two missisipi routine for us to be on the same page. This is immutable. Freefall speed from 110 storeys is unchangeable. Seconds aren't in dispute either, even if we're in different time zones.

Youre second beef with CD Hypothesis is motive. You don't believe there is one. Others do. Of those that do, there is disagreement on what that motive could have been. I myself believe the strongest motive of them all was the need for war against Iran because of their nuclear programme. I am of the present opinion that if Iran had no nuclear programme, Iraq would still be under Saddam and the Taliban would've never been attacked probably. Fear, far more than a Greed for oil, is what I believe has motivated much clandestine activities designed to take down whole countries.

You said: "If they wanted to blame terrorists for what they wanted to do, namely bring down the towers, why not do a repeat of 1993, ( this time successful ) and bring them down at night with minimal casualties ? Seems to me it would be possible to set up a ‘ terrorist ‘ patsy for that".

And I say, do you know absolutely anything about WTC 1993? Google Ahmed Salim and get back to us. Real terrorists appear to have been used, and those terrorists were aided by government insiders, unbeknowst to them....if we believe the official story.

You said:" If the terrorists didn’t need the buildings to come fully down to achieve their goals, then by the same token, neither would the false flag / black ops people. So the only group with a vested interest in full demolition is....who ? Larry Silverstein ? N Y Port Authority ?
Would these people kill thousands to make more money ? Does anyone else share my sense of disbelief here ?

And I say: No, the terrorists arent the only ones who'd need the towers to completely fall to achieve their objectives. For instance, do you think you could invade/bomb six countries or more based on an amatuerish attack that resulted in few casualties? If you do then fine. But the 6 casualties in wtc 1993 couldn't bring about six wars. Now as a result of 911, USA has used an iron fist against Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria (they were just attacked a short time ago on a small scale), and maybe Iran and North Korea later.

As for your disbelief about the money motive. I sort of share that with you. Like I said earlier, I think this is all about fear of a Muslim Atomic Bomb.

You said:" Also, I remain very puzzled by WTC 7, by the molten metal under the rubble, to name but a few things that I feel need to be answered. ."

I say, are you aware that molten metal was under ALL THREE BUILDINGS? Are you aware that some versions of the Official Conspiracy Theory say the Molten metal associated with 1 and 2 are aluminium and not Iron? But if 1 and 2 had molten plane wreckage pouring out of them, how did that molten aluminium plane wreckage get underneathe a building that wasn't hit by a plane (ie; #7)? Do you get that? It wasnt aluminum. IF it was Iron, HOW do you produce that? Shouldnt we at least investigate? That's all we're saying. If you believe a real investigation is warranted then you are already a "twoofah" and don't even know it yet. It is called a controlled demolition hypothesis because it's major proponents proffer it as a PROBABLE POSSIBILITY, not a proven event.

CD of WTC 1 and 2. continued...

I did apologise for the hugeness of the post. Again. Sorry.

I have always emphasized that WTC 7 falls completely differently from 1 and 2.
You seem to lump them all together. That’s confusing, becaseu 7 really does look like controlled demolition. 1 and 2 just do not. Like I said, it’s so ironic to me that people point
At 1 and 2 saying “ Look ! Controlled demolition “ when in fact, there is no other example in history of buildings ever falling like that, whether from CD of from plane impacts / fires.
These collapses are unlike anything ever seen before or since. .

Freefall : WTC 1 takes over 16 seconds from first movement at the top to last piece to hit the ground. Probably more like 18 seconds. All videos bear that out. Simple timing.

Motive : In my view, two planes hitting the towers, one hitting the pentagon and one more the white house ( ? ) would have been plenty as an excuse to start the War on Terror and whatever is behind that. Still over a thousand dead, people jumping from the towers, people in the planes...first attack on US soil....it’s enough to work with, so to speak.
The complex CD of 1 and 2 makes no sense at all. You say the terrorists needed the towers to come down, No they didn’t, and they never knew they would fall either.
They could have hit WTC 1 much, much lower.
Also : 9/11 as an excuse to stop Iran from going nuclear ? Why forget to use Iranian patsy terrorists ? Why forget to use Iraqi patsy terrorists ? Why Saudis, the country closest to the US and Bush ? Makes absolutely no sense.

I have no explanation for the molten metal, only huge curiosity. I cannot however link it to thermate / incendiaries based on Steven Jones’ present level of science, though.
But, yes, let’s find out what it was. Let’s find out about Atta and cronies in Florida, who did they know, talk to, , Let’s find out what information passed between terrorists and ‘ black ops ‘ about the date and time of the attacks.

Now, I think Jones and Griffin just want to reach the goal of a new investigation by asking tough questions. Great . But the CD of 1 and 2 is not strong and is easily misused by others, right and left, to ridicule the 911 truth movement.

You are a little optimistic about how people here see the CD hypothesis as ‘ probable ‘ and not proven. It is a 911 truth dogma ! They are FANATIC about it ! I get voted down because I dare question it .
You are practically the first person to ever seriously respond to the content of what I say.

hAVE A LISTEN....

You said: " Otherwise the huge noise produced by the collapses would be caused mostly by explosives.
Is that what that sound is ? I don’t think so. "

And I say, Listen to this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HO4KXN-IBw

Show "reply part 2" by haverman

This'll be short and sweet

First off, you say you dont see any explosivity in the characteristics of the videos of the WTC, ahem, exploding. But the video under which we are posting shows you very clearly that most of the squibs are right beneathe the demolition wave, right beneathe the advancing/falling cloud, right beneathe clear view. It just so happened that that camera shot probably caught 85% of the smoke obscured squibs on a whole face of one of the buildings. Someone should count the "bursts of debris from point like sources" in the towers. In that video alone I'd estimate 25 to 35 explosive bursts.

Now, I will skip the who-done-it section because that is pure conjecture and conspiracy theories. We could name one or a few, but not all without legal action. So forget that, for now.

Question for you: Could you see a section of tower held in the air by a massive crane comprised of just 18 storeys...being dropped onto an intact and undamaged 110 storey wtc skyscaper....and it demolising the whole thing straight down the middle non stop at, you guessed it....free fall speed? Does the collapse of Tower One make any sense to you whatsoever?

Show "My point is that no section" by haverman

how you can watch the vdeos and not see a C.D. ?

the cores of the buildings where gone when the dust cleared,. no gravity colapse could account for the obliteration of all that metal,. not to mention all the office fixings,. and people! DUST nothing left,. gravity just don't do that! try it jump off the roofof a tall building and see if you turn majicly to dust,.

as for the difficulty of placeing the explosives,. nothing is implsible given unlimeted money,. and full access,.

and this crap about top down vs bottom up is pushed so hard by the supporters of the OCT that I think that they are pissed that not too many people even noticed,. and they worked so hard to do it that way,. that they can't stop themselves from bringing it up,. get over it. sure bottome up makes sence for ease of collapes however that don't stop these guys form doing it the other way round,. hence the dust!

one tower falling from the plane could have seemed like a fluke,. 3 falling from 2 planes is just too imposible,. and to all fall strait down?? you gotta be joking if you can belive that,.

Show "you say : the cores of the" by haverman

This is what you don't get Haverman

and this is the point of your disconnect: You acknowledge that the liquified metal under number 7 is anomalous. But you do not connect 7 with 1 and 2 in any way. Understand....IF the molten metal under 7 had an unnatural source, then 1 and 2 were also demolished professionally because they too had liquid metal underneathe. It's that simple.

You see the molten metallic lava pouring out of tower 2 at around the plane impact zone right before it gives way and comes down. Um excuse me, but if you liquify the superstructure of a building with incendiaries....it will weaken. Then all you need is bombs to break it apart.

You must also remember (if you ever knew) that FEMA produced/discovered metal from #7 and #1 or #2 (they said it was from either building/ unsure) which was not only partially melted, it showed sulfidation and partial evaporation. Ordinary infernos (if there's anything ordinary about infernos) cannot produce that degree of heat. You can see pictures of this swiss cheese looking metal on the net. The sulfur created a EUTECTIC compound....according to FEMA, which permitted this strange effect to take place even faster, the erosion of the metal. A eutectic mixture is simply a group of substances mixed together who have a lower collective melting point than when they are seperate. The question is, where did all of that sulfur come from? And yes, the Thermate reaction involves sulfur.

If you think the EUTECTICS underneathe all three buildings need to be answered for by somebody, my friend, you are a Truther already.

I said mysterious, not

I said mysterious, not anomalous. Worthy of serious investigation. As are eutectics, about which I confess I know nothing.
I will try to educate myself in that area.

If you can prove that WTC 7 's destruction is related to the molten metal underneath,
I will concede that in the case of 1 and 2, the initiation of collapse was possibly achieved with the help
of some device. I will still say that the videos of 1 and 2 collapsing do not show CD at work.

Does it bother you that so many structural engineers and physicists, including Robertson who designed and built
the towers, disagree with the hypothesis that CD was needed to bring the towers down ?
On the other hand, many structural engineers and physicists would describe the collapses as I do.

Without the CD of 1 and 2 hypothesis, the 911 truth movement still has a lot of very important questions to ask.
I keep coming back to this site because I'm genuinely intersted in what the truth is.
I also go to debunking sites, to get the other perspective. So should some of the people here, if they dare.

As for me being a truther, my critical attitide on this issue gets me voted down with predictable regularity.
I want to know what really happened. I want to know the truth. Not your truth, not my truth. THE truth.

deleted due to bad margin spacing problem

...

Analysis of the short-lived

Analysis of the short-lived core remnants indicates the outer, strongest, cross-braced core columns were destroyed simultaneously with the "collapse wave". They gave immediately.

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

Well my friend....

You need to call FEMA, because they've been trying to answer that question for over 6 years now and their technical people are stumped. They'd love to hear from someone who could explain the collapses, from plane impact, to global instability, to calculations of inertia giving the time it takes for everything to come down. You need to give FEMA a call. And NIST too.

Why would it crumble?

It has steel framing. It would not crumble from being lifted up! It would take a very very large crane or whatever I admit, but it wouldn't crumble because the framing would hold it together.

And...
Building seven clearly was a bottom up collapse. No planes hit it. It collapsed just like a CD.
The towers came down top first. That doesn't however prove they weren't explosively demolished. Had they came down like seven, someone would have to explain why they collapsed from the bottom up when they had no damage initially at the bottoms. So they had to be brought down from the point of impact to make it look convincing. But as we've seen the upper eighteen floors shifted on one tower and started to fall onto the undamaged structure below which should have resisted and caused either the upper part to slide further from the center of the main building and then off to the side or it would have eventually arrested the fall. That wouldn't have allowed for the destruction of #7 however. So there had to be enough explosives and thermite to be sure it all would come down completely.

You also said: "The floors are guided strsight down by the remaining
columns ( perimeter and core ) . "

Nope. If that was the case then the core columns would have been left standing IMO.

Tne towers only stood

Tne towers only stood because of the floors fixing the column s in place,
The towers fell when the floors atarted to give way and fall onto each other
Look at pictures of how small the btackets were that connected the floors with the columns.
Look at how thin the floors were. Built to be light and provide lateral steadyness, but they had
no bearing function in the actual holding up of the towers. So this was no steel grid or frame in the
usual sense.
the core was a steel frame. it was so strong that it stood even after
the rest of the building had fallen, at least in part and for a while.
A testament to its great strength. So yes, they did stand after the rest was all down.

If not CD then what is yr hypothesis

I'm rather curious. What about Building 7, and what aspects of 9/11 are the 'smoking guns' - wargames, NORAD, etc?

For me Building 7 was the eye opener - if I had never heard about this building I would have never been curious enough to dig into the rabbit hole.

Excellent video by the way! Thank you for your contribution.

"Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective — a New World Order — can emerge..." - George H.W. Bush, 9/11/91

Well, one smoking gun to me

Well, one smoking gun to me has always been the coinciding of the planes being hijacked
on the very day of the exercises, effectively crippling air defenses because of the real word / wargame
confusion. Same with the London bombings. This is no accident, no coincidence.
Who were these terrorists ? Who were they hooking up with in Florida and elsewhere ?
Were they patsies ? Did some know what was really going on while others were acting on a Jihad motive ?
What about the ISI money links with Atta ?
It could be a false flag operation ( this is not written in stone for me yet, because of questions like ' why not use
Iraqi hijackers ? Why Saudis, of all Arab countries... )

False flag or not : there is absolutely no doubt that Cheney / Bush used 911 towards their
own goals. That ought to get them impeached, in my opinion. But the press is whipped and so is Congress.
So they will walk, I fear.

OFF TOPIC...important

Condoleza Rice has been accused of being "a war criminal" by a woman who was brutaly taken out of a conference room were the facist lady was giving away lies I guest....

Anybody heard about it?

Drummerboy
**********************************************************
You can't hide a lie for long. Truth shall come out.

yes, the woman had fake

yes, the woman had fake blood all over her hands and got in COndi's face. it was beautiful. but the cops then went over to the other code pink ladies and assaulted one of them in front of the whole room and Condi. he threw her on the ground, it was pretty brutal and shocking considering where they did it. and again the TV commentators make no comment on the brutality of the police.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

I agree that one clip has

I agree that one clip has dubbed audio, and it's so obvious, I'm always disappointed to see it show up in so many 9-11 videos. People need to be more careful, or not be so willing to find evidence.

Other than that, I don't see the stunning new evidence of video material here. This stuff is suffering from recycle fatigue, or I am.

It would be exciting to actually see something really new and breaking, but I haven't in years.

New youtube video from yours truly

JREF

reposted and hopefully legible reply to Haver"

You said:

" If you can prove that WTC 7 's destruction is related to the molten metal underneath,
I will concede that in the case of 1 and 2, the initiation of collapse was possibly achieved with the help
of some device. "

Well the beauty of the situation is that proving something true isn't neccesary. All we have to do is prove that Fire and Stress weren't the catalyzing events in the fall of all three buildings and we have then pointed probability in the direction of CD. Now you are mentioning 7. That building could not have fallen for any reason OTHER than CD. CD remains as the default explaination. Someone famous said that when you eliminate all other possiblities, the remaining possiblity must be true, no matter how improbable. Let's look at the Official Conspiracy Theories (OCT) regarding 7:

1) It is said by one of the OTCs that floors 5 and 7 of building seven were trusses that somehow held up the rest of the columns and floors. It is claimed that the failure of a certain column on these two levels pulled the rest of the building down in on itself like a beach folding chair (LOL) or like water swirling down one point in a bathtub. ~LIE

2)It is intimated that the ConEd substation underneathe number 7 blew up, bringing the building straight down, like the folding chair or the water whirlpool. ~LIE

3) it is claimed that the diesel fuel tanks ignited and created infernos that weakened the structure to the point of global collapse...as if the steel beams were made of wax. The only problem with that is that most of the Deisel fuel was recovered unignited during number seven's cleanup, and diesel fuel will not liquify the building nor will it cause a spontaneous collapse even if it did. Metal gradually weakens, it doesnt IMPLODE ~LIE

Then you have the evaporated swiss cheese steel beams from number seven and the pools of tons of molten metal, obviously not a liquified aluminum plane. None of the three scenarios could explain how you liquify the building. As a matter of fact, if you realize that you had TONS of molten steel under the pile of 7, you must realize that that was structural steel as there is nowhere else for all of this free metal to come from, hence the molten steel had everything to do with the building failure.

So do you still have the same level of comfort/discomfort with the metallic lava underneathe number seven?

Show "metal under towers 1, 2 and 7" by haverman

haver haver haver....

before I attempt a logical reply, I'd have to ask you (in order to gauge your degree of impartiality and rationality)...was wtc 1993 an inside job? Now before you answer remember ahmed salim and the fake explosives and the real explosives and the fact that they (fbi) were warned ahead of time and yet and still a bomb went off around lunchtime which couldve killed 100,000 people.

Now to the reply:

" But immediately, I'm thinking scenario and probability "

~~In light of the above, is the probability issue worked out for you yet?

" Some jumped the gun
and got their facts wrong ( CNN BBC ) but that in itself doesn't mean squat. "

~~~or does it? How can you predict the complete collapse of seven before it happens when this has never occured before and has no official explaination to this day? If they knew it would come down like that surely they knew why. Why isn't anyone venturing a guess now? Think over that.

" Would Silverstein blab on TV about blowing his building up ? I don't think so.
Would Silverstein say : there's been a great loss of life, let's blow the tower up
Or would he say : there's been a great loss of life, stop trying to save the building, let it burn,
pull the firefighters out. The latter seems many times more likely to me. "

~~Not neccesarily. But you must take into account something that sofar only I had heard myself guess outloud about....Silverman may have been lied to. The terminology PULL IT in demolition may in fact refer to when a building is physically pulled down with cables. Now anyone advising Silverman on the status of that building and suggesting that it is so bad that it can't be saved could suggest to "PULL IT" to him. Then when everyone is evacuated they could simply light the fuses and blow it up/ liquify it.

" So how is the molten metal related to the fall / CD of 7 ?"

~~~well if you liquify tons of structural steel, that would weaken the structure enough for it to collapse and be easier to implode with explosives.

" How does that work ? Can you explain ? "
~~~We can only guess. The way it is done professionally/ legally is to use angled socalled shape charges to cut the support beams at an angle so that the building can slide down and in on itself. The shaped charges may or may not have used Thermate. I think though that thermate shaped charges would be alot quieter for some reason. They could eat away at the skeleton of the building while showing no outward signs.

" What is happening in the time after the penthouse drops and the initiation of total collapse ? "
~~If I knew that I would be working for FEMA> Hey, if you can describe how 1 and 2 fell, why can't you explain this one for yourself?

" Why werent many pieces of evidence ( wires., caps , etc ) found in the rubble of 7 ?
If there were, who hushed it up ? "
~~~I'm not going there. The whole damn building was evidence and it was carted away at lightning speed. I think like Carlin, investigations arent coming. What we need is the Truth spread and Lawsuits to go down.

" Why would the metal be there under all three towers when 1 and 2 fell completely unlike 7 ? "

~~~Haverman, whatever excuse there is for molten metal under one tower cannot account for the other two. For instance, 7 had a ConEd substation, 1 and 2 did not. If you explain the liquification of 1 and 2 by diesel fuel, that doesnt pan out for 7 for reasons I've already mentioned. Now, if you have bombs you can set off remotely, obviously you can blow up any bomb you want to first. Therefore "THEY" could make the building fall anyway they wanted to...top down, bottom up implosion/explosion.

" Is there another plausible explanation for the heat / molten metal ? "

~~NO

Re. scenario / probability :

Re. scenario / probability : I don't doubt there could be forces at work with dark agendas.
I do not doubt that JFK and MLK were killed by invisible forces in / behind the government.
I do not doubt there are striking connections between the terrorists and US government
( Able Danger ) Just in the case of CD, I doubt the likelihood of it all happening that way.

WTC 7 I can't begin to explain. It seems impossible that the building would fall from just fires.
I agree. 1 and 2, well you know how I think about those...

It was all over the media 7 might be coming down.... hours before it actually did.
The firefighters were indeed pulled out They were waiting for it to fall.
That doesn't mean the plotters accidentally let it slip out that they were about to throw the switch and
' liquify ' the steel frame....

If your theory is correct that Silverstein was lied to, that makes the NYfire department, more precisely the chief,
a direct culprit. You are positing nothing less than direct complicity of the NYFD highest people.
Are you sure you want to do that ?

" They could blow the buildings up any way they wanted to. top down, bottom up..."
I feel you have far too much faith in ' their ' control over events.
And it begs the question : since you are so sure about these ' real ' culprits, aren't you curious who they might have been ?
You would have to say either Silverstein ( clear motive for total destruction of towers, so you say )
or false flag black ops, but then my question is : why would these guys need the towers destroyed completely ?
I say they didn't , and therefore have no motive for CD.

Is there another plausible explanation for the molten metal ?
NO you say.
Well, explain to me why the metal didn't cool down and was still glowing hot days afterwards ?
The thermate reaction does end at some point you know It doesn't just go on and on...

reply...

" I do not doubt there are striking connections between the terrorists and US government
( Able Danger ) Just in the case of CD, I doubt the likelihood of it all happening that way. "

Ok, I take that comment as an answer to my query of do you take wtc 1993 as an inside job. You kindof answered it in the affirmative...sort of but not quite. That shows me that we won't make much progress conversing because you will always interpret damning evidence as either incompetence/coincidence. The point is that if there is the mere possibility of intentional malpractice, someone's gotto get pinched. If you can't see that/admit that, we are pretty much done. Now, on to the rest of the reply.

" Just in the case of CD, I doubt the likelihood of it all happening that way "

Well if you believe the Government has "striking connections" with terrorists, past, present, and damn well future, and able danger to you is evidence of a LIHOP theory ( they Let It (911) Happen On Purpose ), then you are already pointing the finger of guilt at someone for an inside job. LIHOP is just as bad as MIHOP. If the LIHOPers needed an attack bad enough, they'd make sure it went down, ie: CD.

" It was all over the media 7 might be coming down.... hours before it actually did. "

Actually, most people didnt and dont know about 7.

" If your theory is correct that Silverstein was lied to, that makes the NYfire department, more precisely the chief,
a direct culprit. You are positing nothing less than direct complicity of the NYFD highest people.
Are you sure you want to do that ? "

Your whole analytical apparatus is askew. First of all, if you stink, I'm gonna a) let you know and b) tell you to get the hell away from me. Now, if the FNDY was guilty and we saw facts pointing to that I'd say so shamelessly. But the facts do not point to that (to my limited knowledge of 911). What the facts may imply is that half of the firemen at ground zero were STEALING. Now, who lied to silverman? Who knows? Maybe you do and you're just testing the waters to see how smart the internet is.

" Well, explain to me why the metal didn't cool down and was still glowing hot days afterwards ?
The thermate reaction does end at some point you know It doesn't just go on and on... "

We don't know for sure what kind of Thermite/Thermate/Incindiary was used. It's a working theory. One thing is for certain...a Thermate reaction would last longer than a subterrainean fire. That metal was molten lava for 5 MONTHS. It rained, they sprayed fire retardant, rivers and rivers of water, and 5 MONTHS of above normal heat and molten metal. We know one thing...thermate/thermite can survive under water because it possesses it's own oxygen built right in. Now, the thermate reaction might not go on and on, but this conversation definitely won't any longer.

That's enough

deleted for double post

...

Hear blasts here too

From 1:08 to 1:11 in this video you can hear a quick succession of regularly timed blasts. As the 'collapse' gets down to the level of the firefighters a succession of separate and regularly timed blasts can be distinguished.

From the Nadet Brothers film.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=23DB_6ASkdE

Here's the photo, with better resolution...

Direct Links:
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/showbig.asp?photoID=5575
http://hereisnewyork.org/jpegs/photos/5575.jpg
Source Page:
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=6&picnum=133

Note that the firemen are wearing paper or fiber dust masks, and the fireman in the foreground who isn't apparent in the still in the video. The light source is likely a work light and not a cutting torch because the firemen are not wearing any eye protection. Theoretically the actual firemen and photographer could be tracked down and the light source identified/confirmed. Regardless, without confirmation, if this photo is used to claim proof of molten "glowing" metal then the claim risks being undermined if the light source is later confirmed to be something else.

Another photo that I see passed around as "proof" of demolition is...
http://hereisnewyork.org/jpegs/photos/5100.jpg
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/showbig.asp?photoID=5100
...but the photo was probably taken during cleanup demolition. Again, was the "famous cut" done on 9/11 or afterwards during cleanup demolition.