I think the loosechange video explains the supposed explosions a little better they even have first hand interviews with people who where in the lower floors who claim they felt an explosion below them from the basement well before anything above, granted this could have been a result of the plane hitting the lift shafts causing a huge fireball to run the length of the building blowing out of the lower floors.
Another thing to add fuel to the argument is the fact that not long before the attacks large insurance was taken out on the on the towers as well as the owners of Boeing which more covered the cost of any such attacks many times over. Then after the attack they tried to start the insurance claim (not unusual) but they tried claim on a per plane bases that hit the towers saying they were separate acts of terrorism therefore getting them a hell of a lot more in insurance. Probably this is being looked into too much as probably any good business person would want to get as much back as possible, just seems a little off that this particular insurance was taken out only just before the attacks.
There was also no investigation allowed into the base structure of the twin towers which might have proved / disproved any prior weakening to the building structure at it's base. Theres reports that this was something to do with what was stored beneath the towers, something to do with a large storage of gold (a few billion) which a large portion of it was later unaccounted for.
On Building 7 the intresting thing about this is that this building was also owned by the same people who owned the twin towers. Another interesting thing about Building 7 is the way it goes down, granted the twin towers went down in a similar fashion, vertical as opposed to toppling, but Building 7 had no reason really to go that way, nothing of the same magnitude as a 747 hit it full on so why would it go down like that when not one single other sky scraper of similar design as even collapsed never mind collapsed in a demolition type fashion.
Another thing to add fuel to the argument is the fact that not long before the attacks large insurance was taken out on the on the towers as well as the owners of Boeing which more covered the cost of any such attacks many times over. Then after the attack they tried to start the insurance claim (not unusual) but they tried claim on a per plane bases that hit the towers saying they were separate acts of terrorism therefore getting them a hell of a lot more in insurance. Probably this is being looked into too much as probably any good business person would want to get as much back as possible, just seems a little off that this particular insurance was taken out only just before the attacks.
There was also no investigation allowed into the base structure of the twin towers which might have proved / disproved any prior weakening to the building structure at it's base. Theres reports that this was something to do with what was stored beneath the towers, something to do with a large storage of gold (a few billion) which a large portion of it was later unaccounted for.
On Building 7 the intresting thing about this is that this building was also owned by the same people who owned the twin towers. Another interesting thing about Building 7 is the way it goes down, granted the twin towers went down in a similar fashion, vertical as opposed to toppling, but Building 7 had no reason really to go that way, nothing of the same magnitude as a 747 hit it full on so why would it go down like that when not one single other sky scraper of similar design as even collapsed never mind collapsed in a demolition type fashion.
Last edited:
because with the damage and fires on one side surely it should have fell towards that side when it colapsed? and this video clearly has numerous explosions in the background 
also it didn't reach anywhere near the melting point for steel, if you look at the images from that day you will see that the fires were giving of mainly thick black smoke this is a sign that they were not burning anywere near at their optimal tempertures due to lack of oxygen. Also you claim everything else would have caught fire yet being a place of work most of the furniture ect would have had to meet certain safety regs as far as fire proofing goes would it not?