what was the government's explanation for the explosions in the ground floors of WTC, before it collapsed?

Question

Is it wrong to ask a question, i always thought if you didn't understand something you try to figure it out, so i'm wondering what other people think about the explosions that the media quit talking about one day after 9-11-01

you people are reading way too much into it, i''m only asking a question about one particular thing. i'm not trying to prove it was an "inside job" yet, because i don't have all the facts . yet.

Answer 1

Its like all big conspiracy theories. Something as big as this could not be kept secret. Someone would confess to their part. After all, 3000+ people died, someone would have a guilty conscience about it. The number of people needed to carry out would make it impossible to cover up. And then I think that someone would have noticed the massive amount of materials needed to carry out demolition on that scale. I know I would have questioned folks running miles of wire about the building. Wouldn't you?

Answer 2

You can't explain what didn't happen. There was no explosion on the ground floors.

Why don't you do some research on what it takes to prep a building for controlled demolition. The structure has to be weakened, holes have to be drilled for the explosives, and det cord has to be run all over the place. All this takes weeks to accomplish. AND you can't do all that without someone noticing. Two tons of ANFO didn't bring down the tower on the first attempt.

What all these conspiracy theorist fail to produce is eye witnesses that saw something unusual BEFORE 9/11.

Answer 3

Yes, the best way specified matters occurred do generally tend to recommend that it used to be an within process and we will be able to speculate on what we believe we all know until have been blue within the face however actually that The Lack of Evidence is Not Evidence. -He mentioned she mentioned's isn't proof. -You seeing at the information a few man announcing his pal heard the explosions earlier than the structures cave in is with ease NOT proof, its rumour. -Do you may have any PHYSICAL proof that straight hyperlinks the lil' bush management with the cave in of the World Trade Center? The pretext to EVERY struggle used to be fabricated huh? Lets fake Pearl Harbor used to be fabricated. Im no navy strategist BUT if I knew I used to be approximately to go into an international struggle, I could of virtually most likely desired to go into it with a different two,402 squaddies, 188 planes, and 18 ships. Think approximately what you assert earlier than you assert it and take a look at having somewhat pleasure for the finest country on this planet as an alternative of sitting there appearing like a pc hero, hating at the very country that now not handiest allows for however protects your correct to hate on it. Why do not you reflect on that paradox earlier than you get again to speculating conspiracy's. ***EDIT*** For each and every engineer who says planes would now not have taken down the ones structures, theres two extra who says the planes and next fires did take down the structures. I do feel that nine/eleven wasn't what they desired us to believe it used to be and there's most likely some thing extra to the tale than what they have got instructed us. I'm completely open to the thought that it very good can have been an within process however the FACT is that there is not any bodily EVIDENCE to help this, no indefinite smoking gun. -A sequence of parties that arise in a certain method isn't evidence of something. -Experts OPINIONS isn't PROOF of something. Find that smoking gun and sick march with you to the white residence however with out EVIDENCE, you simply have an interpretation of a sequence of parties.

Answer 4

There are many different paranoia websites that deal with various conspiracy theories that can answer your question

Answer 5

Does reality have any meaning for you?

Answer 6

go on with yourlives

Answer 7

There wasn't large 'explosions' at ground level. Many theories originated from people reporting electricals shorting out making pops, flashes...etc. There were lot of confusions during 911 attack and people said lot of weird stuff in interviews that are taken out of context by 911 conspiracy theory authors. Lot of stuff in those 911 theories are twisted info. I'll show you some examples.

Some bloggers and 911 theorists say hijackers are found alive claiming gov created fictitious personalities and links to BBC article titled ‘Hijack 'suspects' alive and well.’ What they don’t say is that this BBC article is about confusion over hijackers’ true identities. It appears hijackers may have assumed someone else's IDs. Criminals using false IDs? Hard to believe? BBC article ends by saying “FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.” That’s why the title put quotation mark around ‘suspects’ when it says ‘suspects alive and well.’

You can read this BBC entire article here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
You’ll notice in the middle of this BBC article titled ‘Hijack 'suspects' alive and well’ it also says in bold face ‘Mistaken Identity.’ Conspiracy gurus never even finished the entire article it appears and have reading comprehension of sixth grader. This article is used to claim that hijackers are made up/fake people in this ‘conspiracy.’ Yes, it’s sad.

Twin towers never fell at free fall speed as Professor Jones claims. He makes eye ball estimate and do not make actual measurements. Several have made calculations showing the towers fell close to free fall because of massive kinetic energy, but frame by frame calculation shows it does not fall at ‘free fall’ speed. You can actually see some debris falling faster than building is collapsing in some footages.

Building 7 had a giant hole stretching over 10 floors and its picture exists, but conspiracy theorists probably don't want you to see since it dampens their 'demolition' theory. See the photo here. http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm Conspiracy theorists do not discuss this massive structural damage, but talk about ‘pull’ quote that is very vague and arbitrary. Why would Silverstein, who is not familiar with demolition at all, use demolition slang to admit something so odd on national TV? That doesn’t make sense.

911 conspiracy theory claim Rumsfeld said flight 93 was shot down. On 9-11-01 it is Cheney who mistakenly believes 2 planes were shot down by Airforce during the attacks. Cheney have ordered to take down any hijacked planes that may be heading for a target after WTC was hit. Rumsfeld tells Cheney he knows one plane is down, but can’t confirm who brought down the plane (flight 93). This episode was explained in PBS’s Frontline: Dark Side. They had obtained actual transcript of their conversation. You can see this transcript here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/ Cheney/Rumsfeld conversation is shown in ‘part one’ at beginning of documentary.

Rumsfeld was in Pentagon when it was hit and helped rescue crew which was caught on video. Why would he or others order missile to hit it when they're in the building. Several light poles at near by high way were knocked down short ways from Pentagon. Did single missile swerve around in chasing after skinny light poles before hitting pentagon? Was it a big fat Tomahawk missile that is wide as commercial airliner’s wing span? http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

Many claim Pentagon had auto missile defense that could have shot down planes entering its airspace, but such project really never took full effect because of fear that civilian plane may be shot down and might pose danger to neighboring residents. Can you imagine some newly licensed pilot flying single engine Cessna into Pentagon air space getting shot down by missile or anti aircraft guns? Richard Clarke, former counter-terrorism official explained this. Ask him about it. How many times do you see planes go off course by accident? Gov officials didn’t want to endanger its own citizens for extremely unlikely scenario.

Some claim debunking911 websites are debunked and links to infowar website, but there they only discuss ‘pull’ comment again which is very vague and arbitrary and they do not discuss other countless flaws in 911 conspiracy theory. They do not explain the fact that many experts have explained ‘molten metals’ and several structural engineers and experts have disputed Steve Jones’s (physicist and not structural engineer) theory.

Debunking911 websites were never debunked, because 911 theorists never explained why things in debunking911 websites are wrong. There are just too many odd assumptions in these 911 theories. 911 theorists do engage in what we now call ‘cherry picking of information’ in order to complete their picture of reality.

Why would government kill 3000 of it own citizens to make case for a war when they can just generate evidence of WMD using intelligence which is so much easier? The US went to war without UN Security Council clearance anyways and have taken military actions without UN clearance in the past. If we can go to war whenever we want to why kill 3000 people? Just for the fun?