What is the source of the sub basement explosion at the WTC?
829451
Please let the paranoia pass. 2 airplanes broght down the WTC. Not a bomb in the basement.
937910
I have screamed since 9/11 that we needed to look at those who gained from the attacks, just prior to the attack, the middle east was in chaos, Israel was in trouble with the UN and US public opinion was calling for sanctions in their attacking unarmed Palastinains, Bush was pushing for increased sanctions against Iraq, meanwhile bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the trade centers and security was cut back drastically. Much of the buildings colaspe does not make scientific sense if it was caused by the fire and inpact from the jets, steel does not melt at the temp that the fire heated to, buildings do not free fall when colasping only imploding caasues this. No engine or balck box was found in the pentegon! Too many unanswered questions and no real governement attempt to answer them
488611
you cannot see it very good, but it seems to low for a plane for the explosion to happen that high and destructive. did you also see the picture of the 747 hittin the north tower, it had a mysterious black shape underneath the cargo area, people believe that was a conspiracy and it was a bomb. i would know i was there
1161949
In a cascading gravity-driven collapse (the "pancake theory"), each floor of the building should have offered at least a modicum of resistance before giving way, with the inertia of the increasing debris forcing itself through less and less resistance as the towers fell.\n\nThe WTC buildings falling at free-fall speed can only be explained by a lack of resistance in any intervening floors all the way to the foundation, meaning complete simultaneous (or rapidly sequential) instant failure of most support and core columns.  Before and after 9/11, this has only been achieved in a controlled demolition environment.\n\nTesting of metal samples of the core columns with supporting evidence of molten metal found at the site 3 weeks AFTER 9/11 have shown large quantities of thermate by-products, an acid-like cutting agent where a very small amount can be used to cut cleanly through metal.  This analysis has been conducted using WTC steel samples provided for WTC memorials at 3 separate universities and is quite conclusive, moreso than DNA evidence.\n\nWith the scientific evidence clearly stacked on the side of "controlled demolition", the greatest obstacle to any 9/11 Truth movement is the psychological factor.  Most people just don't understand science and are quite afraid of it, easily able to dismiss it when any fast-talking pundit counters with a senseless 15-second sound bite.  Most Americans have been thoroughly conditioned to this "hard science is just another opinion" mentality that is making us a joke in the rest of the world, and thoroughly helping our business competitors in the world to import our jobs.
1042088
Still a little in shock and such over the event. I was at my school (high school at the time) waiting for a class to start. The class clown of our grade, Sean, walked in saying his dad just called and said something about [I don't remember what he said exactly]. We all told him stop kidding. We then got the announcement over the PA of what had happened. I think at that time both towers were hit. We got to go home early. My dad worked in NYC but nowhere near there. As for people who passed on, a co-worker of my dad's wife was in one of the tower's on one of the floors that was directly hit. Her name is Laura Longing.
1049378
The Destruction of the World Trade Center:\nWhy the Official Account Cannot Be True\nDavid Ray Griffin\nAuthorized Version (with references & notes)\n\n \n\n \n\nIn The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), I summarized dozens of facts and reports that cast doubt on the official story about 9/11. Then in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005a), I discussed the way these various facts and reports were treated by the 9/11 Commission, namely, by distorting or simply omitting them. I have also taken this big-picture approach, with its cumulative argument, in my previous essays and lectures on 9/11 (Griffin, 2005b and 2005d).[1] This approach, which shows every aspect of the official story to be problematic, provides the most effective challenge to the official story.\n\n     But this way of presenting the evidence has one great limitation, especially when used in lectures and essays: It means that the treatment of every particular issue must be quite brief, hence superficial. People can thereby be led to suspect that a more thorough treatment of any particular issue might show the official story to be plausible after all.\n\n     In the present essay, I focus on one question: why the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. One advantage of this focus, besides the fact that it allows us to go into considerable detail, is that the destruction of the World Trade Center provides one of the best windows into the truth about 9/11. Another advantage of this focus is that it will allow us to look at revelations contained in the 9/11 oral histories, which were recorded by the New York Fire Department shortly after 9/11 but released to the public only in August of 2005.\n\nI will begin with the question of why the Twin Towers collapsed, then raise the same question about building 7.\n\n \n\n \n\n1. The Collapse of the Twin Towers\n\n \n\nShortly after 9/11, President Bush advised people not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories about the attacks of 11 September” (Bush, 2001).[2] Philip Zelikow, who directed the work of the 9/11 Commission, has likewise warned against “outrageous conspiracy theories” (Hansen, 2005). What do these men mean by this expression? They cannot mean that we should reject all conspiracy theories about 9/11, because the government’s own account is a conspiracy theory, with the conspirators all being members of al-Qaeda. They mean only that we should reject outrageous theories.\n\nBut what distinguishes an outrageous theory from a non-outrageous one? This is one of the central questions in the philosophy of science. When confronted by rival theories---let’s say Neo-Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design---scientists and philosophers of science ask which theory is better and why. The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.\n\n     With this definition in mind, let us look at the official theory about the Twin Towers, which says that they collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building” (FEMA, 2002).[3] This theory clearly belongs in the category of outrageous theories, because is it is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. Although this statement may seem extreme, I will explain why it is not.\n\n \n\nNo Prior Collapse Induced by Fire\n\nThe official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never---prior to or after 9/11---caused steel-frame high
1168818
lead insurer, Zurich American Insurance Co\n13 so-called "excess" insurers provided the next levels of coverage for the World Trade Center, following Zurich\n\nThe claims have not been settled yet, however a study by the New York City Controllers' office in November 2001 estimated property damage claims at $34 billion - with an additional $10 billion in lost business.\n\nYou can find forum discussions, law institute studies and a lot more interesting information below.\n\n*Please choose best answer.  There is a contest now that requires best answer to enter.*
167077
From the Unites States web site::\n\nhttp://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-260933.html\n\n""A total of 2,071 occupants of the World Trade Center died on September 11, among the 2,749 victims of the WTC attacks. \n\nAccording to an article in the October 11, 2001, Wall Street Journal, roughly 1,700 people had listed the religion of a person missing in the WTC attacks; approximately 10% were Jewish. \n\nA later article, in the September 5, 2002, Jewish Week, states, "based on the list of names, biographical information compiled by The New York Times, and information from records at the Medical Examiner's Office, there were at least 400 victims either confirmed or strongly believed to be Jewish." \n\nThis would be approximately 15% of the total victims of the WTC attacks. \n\nA partial list of 390 Cantor Fitzgerald employees who died (out of 658 in the company) lists 49 Jewish memorial services, which is between 12% and 13%.\n\nThis 10-15% estimate of Jewish fatalities tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area.""\n\nHOWEVER, the antisemites among us wont ever believe this truth, and the ones on and off the internet who keep the lie going that the Jews were forewarned, are usually tied to the Arabs. \n\nhttp://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-260933.html
966498
i hope so. i believe it was an inside job. just way to many coincidences.NORAD standing down on that particular day  for first time in 35 yrs. Marvin bush company in charge of WTC security,he forgot to start renegotiating a new contract,old contract happened to end  on 9-11. why did they have to 'pull' building 7 ?  how could they not find both black boxes that are designed to survive crashes yet find the hijackers unburned passport on the street ? etc.
1121876
goerge bush knew it was going to happen. he wasnt even suprised when he heard it. \nhere are some cool things:\n-9+11=20 you do a trick with the 20 dolloar bill and you can see a oicture of the WTC on fire.\n-911 (emergency #) or 9/11\n-the pentagon had nine hundred and eleven mails and emails that day.
280905
During some nuclear tests, they wanted to see how air moved near the explosion.  Just before the detonation, they launched rockets that produced a lot of smoke in their exhaust.  These smoke trails served as reference lines so they could see how the air moved.  I always wondered about this, too, until I recently saw this explanation.  I'm sorry I don't remember the source.\n\nWhat is really weird is some of the Howard Edgerton images of the first few instants of A-bomb explosions where the electric current induced in the tower guy wires is vaporizing the wires!  See the 7th photo.
492778
I dont think that you'll find them \nyou can read this:http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html\nor this:\nhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
47862
No substance at all. Skyscrapers in New York City are designed to collapse straight down in the event of a catastrophic collapse (like from a severe earthquake).\n\nThis is a necessity because New York City has so many skyscrapers closely packed together. If one fell over sideways, it would cause a chain reaction like dominoes, causing millions of deaths.\n\nWTC7 collapsed due to fire. The firefighters decided not to fight the fire in the building because they knew that the building was empty, and that their efforts were better spent rescuing people trapped under the rubble.\n\nSince the fire was allowed to burn unchecked, it eventually weakened the steel members causing it to collapse.\n\n\nBackground information: The steel in the building DID NOT MELT. Steel has a strange property; when it gets heated to a certain temperature, it loses about half its strength.\n\nIf you don't believe that, think about this: why do city fire codes require steel beams to be sprayed with fireproofing material if steel can't catch fire? The fireproofing material is to prevent the steel from losing it's strength due to high temperatures.
862928
islalamofascists were responsible for 9/11. You can find tons of doctored video. There is not doubt at all about who is responsible.
678003
Your first question is how did it collapse.  \nFrom everything I heard it was "pulled" or a planned implosion.\n\nYour second question was is it possible that it collapsed due to fire.\nNo.  In fact no steel framed building before or since has completely collapsed due to fire.  And in this case there were only two floors that had small fires on them.\n\nI'm no expert.  But this is what some scientists and people who are looking into the collapse of building 7 along with towes 1 and 2 are saying.
1125038
I worked in building 7. It burned up from the heat and the collapse\nof one and two. The whole area was wrecked, even buildings(like Myrill Lynch) where ruined, and it was blocks away, not connected by the path and the underground mall like 7 was.\n7 collapsed just the way it was built  to, like all towers in populated areas are. Spin down not fall over.
90194
Are you aware that a group of islamic terrorists exploded a truck under the World Trade Center towers in 1993 while President Clinton was President?  How was THAT something that the current President Bush initiated?  The root cause of the terror that is ravagin the middle east was the 1920s in Egypt.  You should inform yourself of the issues.