At ~5:40 in the History Channel video you can clearly see the northeast side of WTC 1 being demolished with explosives.
 

I hope you're being facetious...
 

Only in my misplacement of the demolition: Northwest not northeast.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EZeaW4ybejs
 

What I'm seeing there doesn't resemble demolition in any sense. Have you actually watched a real demolition video? Hint: there's one in the video posted in this blog entry...
 

That, along with the fact that any dimwit knows that demolitions make a building explode in on itself, not shooting debris and shit all over people on the streets below. The building is clearly doing the opposite of a controlled demotion: it's collapsing out.
 

That side of the building is being pulverized in quick bursts of explosions.
 

Except that those are clearly not explosions. Explosions would have had unmistakeable flashes. They also would have left easily-traceable residue which would have been found and identified within days. The "blasts" we see in your video, on the other hand, are clearly ejections of mass from within the buildings (buildings are largely hollow, remember) as the floors are crushed from the top down. There is no evidence otherwise except for the amateur speculation of unqualified (yet vocal) individuals who know how to post something on Youtube.
 

Great Video. Dr. Steven Jone was a professor at the local university here (BYU) they canned his ass. Its true, the towers were not brought down by "explosives" as dumbass liberal conspiracy theorists would have us believe by giant passenger jets filled to the brim with fuel traveling at speeds over 500 mph. The video clearly shows that the towers came down due damage and fire that were caused by the jet impacts.
 

Also, Fl. 11 and Fl. 175 were not fully-fueled; they were filled only for transcontinental travel, about 10,000 gl. of jet fuel.
 

Not every Conspiracy Theorist is a liberal.
 

This video proves nothing. The example demolition wasn't trying to hide the fact it was a demolition. The main support system of the twin towers were the center spires so you wouldn't see the flashes. You wouldn't need to rig the whole buiding with demo wire, only a number of floors to start the buildings collapses.. However, I'm still in the air to whether or not explosives brought down the twin towers. Neither side has a compelling argument.
 

That's ludicrous. The cores of both World Trade Towers remained standing after the collapse stripped the floors off of them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSNDu2__F_4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK0QoTtxJe8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ssXQbnF9A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaysznxCBzA
 

The lower part of the spire was left standing, not the upper part. you=fail
 

So... which side are you arguing here, by the way?
 

Just merely presenting ideas. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
 

Fair enough... I guess you seem to argue the Devil's Advocate so well sometimes that I forget :-P
 

You firgured it out nicely; if you look at the SLCMS comments you'll see I'm not a Truther.

Playing Devil's Advocate keeps everyone on their toes. ;)
 

You're never gonna convince 'Truthers' of anything. They live in a special dimension where things such as 'facts' and 'common sense' have no place.
 

Actually, their so-called 'common sense' is the reason they even have a following.
 

Thanks for posting this. The Armchair Revolutionary needs to be placed in the loony bin. What I find disturbing in these presentations is no one mentions the unique construction of the WTC. One of the problems with building such a tall building is lots of space is taken up by elevator space and pillars. The WTC was constructed like a steel straw allowing for massive use of office space on each floor of the building. When struck by planes, the fuel in the planes was just enough to burn out the construct of the building causing it to collapse.
 

Well first off I'm not a loon but thanks for the concern. Second, the jet fuel was burned out roughly 15 minutes post impact; the resulting office fires and impact caused the collapse. Third the floor trusses were bowed due to heat, pulling the perimeter columns inwards causing the outer walls of the Towers to buckle and global collapse iniated.
 

i had to comment based off of andrew's clearly misleading statement. the "unique" construction of the towers was not in the fashion of a "straw," or the buildings were "hollow steel shafts," is wrong and misleading. there were i believe 47 interior core columns that supported the buildings. try reading this:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

i am an attorney and deal only in facts. unfortunately for the government, the facts do no support their official theory that we are all told is what happened that day. more and more people are waking up to the fact the official story is a lie. i suggest everyone take the time to review architects and engineers for 9/11 truth at:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

you can make fun of "twoofers" all day. but in the courtroom, when a side wants to make a scientific case, they have experts placed on the stand to rationalize their arguments. i'm not an architect nor an engineer. if anyone else isn't either, then find someone with the proper educational background to refute their claims. they are not "crazy liberals," but experts in their field that when presented with the facts, come to the conclusion that the official story is a lie.
 

funny...you mention that as an attorney you only deal in facts. most attorneys probably deal in evidence too. we are yet to see a single truther come out with physical evidence that supports their claims. anything....shrapnel from the bomb that hit the pentagon, thermite from the wtc, explosives from bulding 7, etc. instead we're left with pictures suggesting that it "looks like" a controlled demolition, or "they probably used thermite."

it's funny how upset truthers get when their version gets challenged....is it my fault that they can't prove a single theory they present?
 

ae911truth.org has dead people and communist a/c repairmen on it's list. There was also a guy from Canada City, Canada there, and another guy from the James Randi forums made up a bunch of info and got accepted. So yes, "you can make fun of "twoofers" all day." Every day.
 

You will have to explain to me how you can prepare a building with 50,000 people working in it every day for demolition without anyone noticing, and do so in a way that the collapse starts where you want it to, especially when “where you want it to” just had a jet fly thru it at 500 mph. If you can do that, I'll get me a 9-11 truth sign and see you at the next Ron Paul rally!

Points to clarify

1. It takes weeks to prepare a building for demolition so that 1 night shutdown story doesn’t fly
2. No one disputes the collapse began at the points of impact, so how could any of the pre-placed explosives survived?
3. Where are the men who rigged the towers, why wouldn’t anyone who was ask to participate in such a crime talk? Only a few have the expertise. They fall into the hard working, honest, patriotic American stereo-type. Not the type to be quite.
 

I'll make sure to listen to these people:

http://911guide.googlepages.com/truthersexposed
 

and what exactly is your education and experience in this field? do you have an expert opinion that refutes the above mentioned individuals that are members of ae911truth.org?

i also suggest everyone taking a look at:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

so, are the family members, military members, pilots, law enforcement, intelligence and government officials, that although none are stating that it was "bush and cheney," but nonetheless, question the official story all conspiracy theorists? i think you need to re-examine the facts...

the house of cards is falling and more and more people, including experts in their various professions are coming forward questioning the official story.
 

i don't understand how you can criticize someone's expertise when you are just an attorney. that's a far cry from civil engineering.
 

Yeah, Emil? Well, the Towers fell at free fall speed let's see ya debunk that!
 

The general concensus is,
A) they didn't fall at freefall speed, even though it can be argued that it was close, and
B) the fact that they fell so fast doesn't really mean anything. it's just the effect of gravity on mass with a bit of downward acceleration.

I really wish the twoofers would give up on the "free-fall speed" argument, seriously now. I mean, how poor must a person's concept of physics and gravity BE to not comprehend the effect of gravity on half a million tons of building sitting on something hollow, burning, and buckling, as the WTC towers were...
 

Shyam Sunder of NIST says the Towers fell at free-fall:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=p-LVmbLYiQw
 

nice video, btw. i hadn't seen it yet, thanks.
 

So?
 

Just presenting videos that's all.
 

Ah, the appeal to authority. Those sites are promoting so many different theories that n one can take them seriously.

Please tell us what your theory is, Mr. Lawyer.
 

I have absolute proof that 9/11 was an inside job <a href="http://www.mywii.com.au/Post.aspx?id=6108&p=4">here.</a> Scroll down for THE TRUTH!
 

Link didn't go through. I dumb. It's this:

http://www.mywii.com.au/Post.aspx?id=6108&p=4
 

That's more believable than anything the Truth Movement has come up with.
 

you left out the part that twoofers believe anything alex jones tells them to.
 

wow. been busy and kind of forgotten about these posts, until someone mailed me stating they replied to my posts. emil brought up some interesting points about experts supporting the official story, something i will follow up on.

as far as some stating i'm an authority figure, no, i never said that. like i've said in other posting and mailings to people, i'm simply trained to deal in facts and evidence. when something is outside of common knowledge, in a courtroom, an attorney needs to present expert witnesses to support their claims. i feel that the people involved with architects and engineers for 911 truth do just that. but again, i will have to read those mentioned by emil to see what they say.

one person mentioned what is my theory then. well, i certainly have them, but they're just that, theories. just because someone who questions 9/11 may not have the exact answer to something, does not mean that the official story must be true.

i like to have people take the one step at a time approach. either you believe the official story, or you can take the first step and say that it is incomplete, misleading and/or wrong. now, does that mean that cheney was down in a bunker, directing everything, or that the planes were remote controlled, or that particle beams from space brought down the towers? no and at this point, those are several steps down the line and may not even be the case (especially the particle beam theory and the pod theory...yes, they're are those with active imaginations that don't take the time to start from the beginning, but jump right to their own conclusions. others argue it is deliberate misinformation...). i'm not concerned with that at the moment.

let's start from the beginning. the official story is inaccurate. i can say that i've compared what the official account states to the evidence and it does not add up. based on the fact the government is trying desperately to stop any further independent investigation into 9/11 raises another flag to me. and that there are brave scientists, architects and engineers that are stepping forward stating that the official story does not add up is more evidence that something is amiss....

no one wants to think that anyone, especially those involved in our own government, could let happen, or even be involved in such a horrific act. i don't either. but facts are facts and the evidence does not support the official story in my opinion. feel free to message me directly, i'll try to respond as fast as i can.
 

Actually, I'm perfectly willing to consider that my government could be into some pretty bad things. But I'd like one sliver of proof. Not ONE single engineer with any credibility says the buildings came down from explosives. Not one with any credibility. ....And another thing. The U.S. couldn't keep Watergate secret....they couldn't keep Iran/Contra secret....they couldn't hide the fact that they manipulated information to get support for Iraq. They screw EVERYTHING up.....But you're going to tell me that they carried out something like this and killed thousands of Americans and not one person has spilled the beans? You can't be serious. The firefighters all kept good secrets. The demolition people all kept good secrets. No one in the FBI leaked it (for God sakes, a high ranking FBI official DIED IN the building collapse trying to rescue people....you really think he went in there knowing the buildings were coming down????). ....I love it how you're labeled as a person who can't "expand" their mind if you choose to look at the facts and ask for proof. I guess I'd rather be looked at as a critical thinker then a friggin' nut job. ....If it wasn't 9/11, the left wing whackos would be complaining about something else. ....And did you know that a person interviewed some protesters at Ground Zero (who have been protesting for FOUR years) and asked 12 of them what the OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT FINDINGS WERE re. why the buildings came down. ..NOT ONE PERSON COULD GIVE HIM THE CORRECT ANSWER. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON. LMAO. Protesting the government and accusing them with murder and they don't even know what they gave as a reason for the buildings going down. So that is "enlightened" thinking? Count me out. LMAO. You're embarassing yourselves. ...... 
 

I sent you a post with a video in it lets just see if you are censoring or not