Underground explosions - the cause of the 9/11 towers collapse?

There is video evidence and also seismograph records that show there was a violent shake right before the collapse of the towers.



There is video evidence of this from a camera on a tripod which was steady on the ground and shook right before the collapse, and also eyewitnesses on the Brooklyn bridge say the bridge shook just before the collapse.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Cary Sheih - survivor:

"I was a few floors from the ground. Floor...4...then all of a sudden, a loud boom, and the building began to shake unbearably again. People started falling down the stairwell as smoke started to rise from the bottom. The emergency lights flickered and then went out. The building was still shaking, and I could hear the steel buckling."

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

"Trusses failing on floors 70+ of WTC 2 could not have transmitted a rumble to this bridge. The rumble felt by the witnesses had to have originated underground."

^ speaking of the Brooklyn Bridge

Look at those links and read every part, what do you think?

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Morrison]

The lower part of the building was probably shaking and making the ground shake because of the weight from the upper part of the bulding that the beams had to hold. Thats what i think, sorry i couldnt give a detailed explanation

survivors that were in the building before it collapsed say it was an explosion, not just weight that buckled the bottom, a plane hitting 70 floors up cannot create that much destruction to the lower floors

Here is what Cassiopaeans say.

Q: (L) Well, we ordered a micron filter for the air unit just in case! (A) I would like to ask about how this
building collapsed and why. There is more and more discussion about it, and theories are flying. (L) Well,
let's ask again just to be clear. Were the WTC buildings collapsed by internal sabotage, or simply as a result
of being hit by jets?
A: Airplanes.
Q: (L) There was no internal sabotage?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What caused the buildings to collapse?
A: Structural weaknesses.
Q: (L) We watched one film that showed a strange, dark object, shooting down towards the ground. What
was that?
A: 4th Density energy surge.
Q: (L) Where was it surging from and to?
A: Dome of destruction energy time lock to ground.
Q: (L) Are you saying that there was a dome of a time lock over this area? Do you mean that they put a
"time lock" over this area so that they could "harvest" bodies or energy?
A: Close.
Q: (BT) Was there any other purpose besides harvest?
A: Gathering records, gold, soul extraction, he said.
Q: (L) What does "he said" mean?
A: Journeyman.
Q: (L) Who or what is a "journeyman?"
A: Informant.
Q: (L) So there is a "journeyman" who is the informant from whom you obtained the information regarding
the question?
A: 4th Density STO observer.
Q: (L) What did they want the gold for?
A: 4th density uses gold for technology.
Q: (BT) Well, that is in many myths about the "gods" mining gold in antiquity. (L) Were they gathering
records in the sense of material objects?
A: Partly.
Q: (L) Might these records also have been an extraction of "records" from people as they were dying?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) For what purpose did they intend to use the souls that were extracted?
A: Remolecularization.
Q: What will they used these remolecularized beings for?
A: Insert them back into building to escape and be rescued.
Q: (L) Are you saying that this was an opportunity used as a very traumatic screen event of a mass
abduction, so to say?!
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What was done to these people who were abducted? Was there a specific reason for a mass
abduction?
A: Turn on the programs.
Q: (TB) So, those who "escaped" are very likely programmed individuals turned loose in our society. People
with programs set to make them run amok at some point?
A: Close.

are cassiopaeans fortune tellers? lmao

do do you think there's a possibility that there were bombs in the basement like there were in i think it was 1992?

definately, it was obviously some kind of explosion, look at the seismograph, the shaking video that was fixed on the ground, all the people on the brooklyn bridge and a block and a half away from the towers, the ground shook

Or maybe there was an explosion that wasn't related to wtc collapse? Maybe the impact of the jets just shook the buildings so much, it caused slight vibrations of the entire area? Dunno... I'm not a seismologist. I honestly do not know what happened, I only read what others say. You could be right

whers the little smiley with the BS flag when i need it

The explosions could also have been natural gas mains or lines in the building...

I don't know. There are too many questions about 9/11 that need to be answered to determine if that's true. There are several possible reason the WTC's came down besides the planes.

But I think it was due to internal collapse of the building. The sound of the collapse seemed to start before the actual collapse. I dont think It was anything but the building itself coming down, explosions due to gas or impacts within unseen. Think of the internal turmoil in such an immese structure. The power struggle of such a tall heavy, weakening building losing the battling against gravity. You could feel it all over Manhattan. The subway station and underground mall remained a void. I dont know....

Originally posted by Morrison
There is video evidence and also seismograph records that show there was a violent shake right before the collapse of the towers.


[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Morrison]

Morrison. Do yourself a favor, before you blindly cut and paste from these sites, actually look at what they are presenting as evidence first.

The seismograph above is a classic example. It isn�t that hard to figure out how to read one of these thing. In fact the image that you linked to was taken from here. Check out the source first.

When you do, you will notice that the image presented is not quite the same as the one that you presented above.



Notice that the original image has some additional data on the side and that some of the information is in color.

Look at the seismograph potion of the image above. The red seismograph lines that are insets are the same as the raw data that is presented by the black lines. The difference is that the magnitude scale is condensed while the time scale is expanded.

So tell me, looking at the red trace of the first collapse above, where is this supposed " violent shake right before the collapse of the towers?"

Look at the displacement spectra on the side of the image, can you tell me how this is anything other than what we would expect to see from the collapse?

Originally posted by Morrison
survivors that were in the building before it collapsed say it was an explosion, not just weight that buckled the bottom, a plane hitting 70 floors up cannot create that much destruction to the lower floors

That makes no sense. The buildings did not collapse from the bottom up, they collapsed from the top down.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Morrison
survivors that were in the building before it collapsed say it was an explosion, not just weight that buckled the bottom, a plane hitting 70 floors up cannot create that much destruction to the lower floors

That makes no sense. The buildings did not collapse from the bottom up, they collapsed from the top down.

Exactly. I missed watching the first Tower fall, but I caught the second live on TV. I collapsed from the top downwards.

Next theory.

That makes no sense. The buildings did not collapse from the bottom up, they collapsed from the top down.

read the entire theory on the links I pasted and you'll understand it better, I'm just relaying info I found, read the site I pasted

the image of the seismograph I did not take from the site you pasted, I got it from the site I linked

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Morrison]

Originally posted by Esoterica


Next theory.

Well, that was already presented and debunked here

I'm sorry Morrison...

I really take no stock in whatreallyhappened.com has to offer, to me this is only speculation, no real proof....

Originally posted by Morrison

That makes no sense. The buildings did not collapse from the bottom up, they collapsed from the top down.

read the entire theory on the links I pasted and you'll understand it better, I'm just relaying info I found, read the site I pasted

the image of the seismograph I did not take from the site you pasted, I got it from the site I linked

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Morrison]

Believe me, I don't need to read the links you have posted, I am quite familiar with them and they are wrong.

Just like the Seismograph info is just plain wrong.

Tell me, did you look at the red line that is inset in the image above?

Do you think that that is evidence of an explosion?

I never said I believed any of it, I'm just posting info for debates and discussion