I agree with that 100%, it is as if the 3000 people didn't die to some debunkers. Now that would be a conspiracy worth sniveling at like a government hack.

3:05 - 3:07? Not seeing them. At all.

There's honestly too much digital artifacting to determine anything conclusively, and whether it's just debris or not. So, as far as this being 'new' information, I don't know, considering it was shown on television 8 years ago.

Ah. I will say that I didn't have sound on for the video.

I just wish the quality were a lot clearer. Something historic like that, I'd think there'd be a cleaner archive somewhere. (Didn't archive.org have a stream of all the broadcasts at the time? Check it out; I'm not sure if this one would be there, but I can't see why not.)

They are faint, but they are there. Look at the ABC logo on the bottom right of the video. The flashes appear to go in a downward diagonal path. Just like a demo charge on a building.

I see what you're talking about... it was probably windows being blown out / dust coming out of windows due to internal collapse... the interior of the building most likely began collapsing before the exterior.

Yes, you can clearly see a smoking gun in a low quality, streaming, youtube video! Quit obsessing over worthless, low resolution, and overall shitty videos.

You guys waste more time on this shit that I've spent playing World of Warcraft.

LOL. Yeah, you really got me pegged there.

I was merely suggesting you focus your effort more efficiently. It usually works better than grasping at straws.

most massive scaled murder of our time

Check your fucking ethnocentrism at the door please, and spare the fucking bullshit. If you think is the biggest mass murder of our time, go read a fucking history book.

And by the way, did I mention I'm an American who grew up in the NY area and left a job HQ'd a block from WTC Plaza at the end of August 2001. Now, would you like to go so far as to assume I didn't have a connection with any of those people?

Not to mention that in its low quality, you can still clearly see whatever the fuck those little sequences are.

From 3:05 - 3:07 you can clearly see charges progressing diagonally down the face of the south tower starting from the bottom of the ABC logo.

I can make out what you're talking about if I try hard enough. But are you a demo expert? Are you a structural engineer? Are you a video analysis expert? Or are you really just repeating what some of these professionals who want answers have said? I guess what I'm asking is, what qualification do you have to make such an absolute statement, when it could be a plethora of things aside from nanothermite.

And as for the flashes in question: try this: defocus your eyes for a bit while your watching that video - you'll see a shitload of flashes and pops all over the frame... Even in the middle of the fucking sky. Does that mean they planted the bombs in the clouds, too? OMG! Terrorists have attacked our imaginations!

Nooo! We'll be safe in Imaginationland!

Pardon me, but I would argue that respect and consideration for the event would demand that one hold analyses to a higher standard of quality than this...

Honestly, there's enough good evidence in support of the controlled demolition hypothesis already that you don't need to waste time and energy obsessing over what-might-be-explosion-flashes-but-probably-just-video-artificing details.

Look; if you fly a jet airliner into a building, that building might collapse (without any additional assistance).

This is a totally reasonable assumption, so without any hard evidence to the contrary you have to accept that. Just accept it.

If you are suspicious about the official story, or you think there are things about 9/11 that don't add up, maybe you just feel that you haven't been properly presented with all the information that you need to have closure about this incident. Then focus your time and effort on the parts of 9/11 that are less plausible.

Airliner + Building + Collapse = plausible

Without solid evidence to that contrary there will never be a consensus about an alternative theory to an event that already has a plausible explanation. This is simply because plausible is already believable.

Look; if you fly a jet airliner into a building, that building might collapse (without any additional assistance).

If we ignore the fact that the brilliant american architects and engineers designed the twin towers to take the hit from a 747, then yeah.

So? Does that change the premise that if you fly a large aircraft into a building (any building), then that building may plausibly fall down? No.

Your counter proposal seems to be that the "brilliant american architects and engineers" are infallible. Is this plausible? No.

Well, youd also have to ignore material science and physics, plus all the nano thermite evidence found after the collapses, but dont let that get in the way of the warm gushy feeling youre going for.

Well okay then; Using physics: If you fly a large aircraft into a building (any building), then that building may plausibly fall down.

On the other hand, if there was a building that didn't have an aeroplane fly into it - then that would be suspicious. That's my point.

No one is going to listen to conspiracies about 3&4 because they saw aeroplanes fly into them, then they fell down. It's an open and shut case (unless you come up with concrete evidence) as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

7 on the other hand is another story - but real questions about 7 (and the Pentagon) are simple washed out by the shear lunacy that conspiracy theorists cover the entire days events with.

On the other hand, if there was a building that didn't have an aeroplane fly into it - then that would be suspicious. That's my point.

I know, you made this clear earlier, you arent understanding my point that the buildings were designed to take the hit from the planes and the official story is that the building collapsed due to fire, not from the plane impact. You need to stay current on this stuff. The whole "big shiny plane hit big shiny building fall down go boom" theory has been debunked 10000x.

7 on the other hand is another story - but real questions about 7 (and the Pentagon) are simple washed out by the shear lunacy that conspiracy theorists cover the entire days events with.

If wtc7 and the penagon were fake, youre suggesting that wtc 1 & 2 werent? How bout this, they flew planes into them, AND they placed demo charges in all 3 towers. I know, its such a stretch from your original hypothesis.

No, what I'm saying is; Buildings 1 & 2 clearly fell down due to having their structural integrity removed due to circumstances related directly to the aeroplanes hitting them. End of story.

There is no way to avoid this obvious conclusion unless you bring forward compelling evidence. The video that started this thread is so far from being evidence at all (let alone compelling evidence) that it simply fuels the fire of nutjob conspiracy that drowns out any real questions.

To answer your question: 1&2 weren't "fake", no. No way. You don't need demo charges. Why? If terrorists are going to attack you, then you don't need to "help" them, just let them get on with it. The towers didn't need to fall to the ground.

7, I think is suspicious, so I think that careful questions need to be asked, but they can't be asked )and never get answered even when someone tries) because you simply get the reply: "Stop being such a crazy conspiracy theorist".

Looking at 7, in this case its the fire theory that seems implausible, so you need to look at other options. It looks like a demo job, plus the testimony of people on the ground and the infamous "We decided to pull it" comment, raise all these questions that simple don't get answered...

No, what I'm saying is; Buildings 1 & 2 clearly fell down due to having their structural integrity removed due to circumstances related directly to the aeroplanes hitting them. End of story.

youre alone on this b/c the govt says it was due to weakening steel structure due to fire, not impact. Thats where the physics comes in. All that steel can absorb a 757 no problem.

The fire was a direct cause of the impacts. The planes hit, there was a fire, the structure collapsed. If the planes didn't hit then there was no fire. The planes caused the fire, the fire caused the collapse - how ever you want to term it - the planes where the catalyst for the collapse. Nit picking wont help.

I don't see how anyone could even doubt that that's a possibility - and a reasonable one at that.

And anyway - you've answered your earlier point - the architect and engineers did design the building to survive an impact! Good on them.

What some people call "nit-picking" others call "facts"

Yes, the buildings easily absorbed the impact, it was the fire from the jet fuel that brought down the towers (the official story).

Now try to wrap your head around this fact:

Fires have raged in steel buildings for far longer than a few hours, and they never fell. Some burned for over 24 hours straight and were of inferior construction compared to wtc1 & 2.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm

Other than up until Sept 11, a steel framed skyscraper had NEVER fallen from fire. EVER. Then magically on 9/11 we had 3.

World Trade Center Building 7.....

WTC 7.

WTC7?

I often feel that the argument from symmetry is about as far as you need to go.

Asymmetric localized damage -> rapid symmetrical collapse at freefall acceleration through point of greatest resistance.

Contradiction.

Stop it. Just stop it. 9/11 was over eight years ago. They got away with it. Nothing will change that fact.

no, nothing will change that fact--however, a legitimate, new investigation, followed by acknowledgment and prosecution of heinous and evil wrongdoiing will bring Justice...

not to mention going a long way to showing, not only the world, but ourselves, that we are capable of doing good--standing for Right!--once again...

even if belatedly...

it's time for renewal...

edit: content, spelling, and typos

People still don't agree about whether Hitler started the Reichstag fire.

Like with JFK, the gulf of Tonkin, the business plot and the missing WMD in Iraq? They will never be convicted. They always get away with their schemes. If some poor scapegoat ever gets the blame, it's just because he stepped on the wrong feet.

Agreed! hopefully the nuts will let go of it sooner than it took them to let go of JFK (though the die hards still persist)