9/11 - Hard Facts, Hard Truth
change font size: A A

Underground Explosions

One of the oft-repeated arguments against the intentional demolition hypothesis is that the buildings tumbled from the top down - not from the bottom first. Usually, in a classic demolition, a building is 'pulled' from the core with massive underground explosions and allowed to fall in on itself. Defenders of the 'official story' state that there were no underground explosions 'confirmed' in the lead up to the collapse of the Towers. This is a bizarre argument, and wholly untrue. Because any thorough review of the initial 9/11 reports and footage before the official story was consecrated detail much evidence and eyewitness reports specifically referring to massive underground explosions, secondary explosive devices, beams ejecting themselves from the tops of the buildings, etc. in the lead up to the collapse. All of which wholly support the controlled demolition hypothesis. The first 5 minutes of this clip show some examples of these initial reports.

Watch Video
September 11 revisited

Here are 2 more compilations of early eye-witness testimony:
First link
Second link

When presented with this evidence, Popular Mechanics, NIST, and other defenders of the 'official' story scramble to keep their narrative alive, stating that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, confused, and misrepresentative of what actually happened. Curiously, one could make the exact opposite argument; i.e. that initial eyewitness reports are clear, coherent, fresh accounts of what actually did happen before the witnesses were told how to re-interpret their memory to fit the neater narrative of the 'official' story. Moreover, and most significantly, eyewitness testimony and initial reports are what solve the vast majority of crimes committed in this country. And if eyewitness evidence is considered sound, tried, and tested in the court of law in other cases, then surely it is sound in the case of 9/11 as well. Besides, there are still photos and video evidence showing massive underground explosions and huge puffs of smoke ascending from the base of both towers before the start of collapse, supporting the volume of eyewitness testimony and the hypothesis of intentional demolition. Here is a still photo.
And here is video evidence. Watch low at the base of the Tower for the smoke rising from the street just before collapse. And for in-depth footage and analysis, fast-forward to the 13:25 point of this clip.

Perhaps the strongest evidence of pre-collapse underground explosions lay within the lobby of the North Tower itself, which sustained massive damage some 900 feet below the impact of the airplane. Much of the damage can be seen in this video clip. Ever persistent, the defenders of the 'official story' have blamed the towers' elevator shafts for the lobby's damage. The idea is that the explosion from the impact of the airplanes created huge fireballs of energy which funneled down through the buildings via the elevator shafts, eventually exploding out into the lobby and creating the visible damage and destruction.

As with so many of the official explanations for unexplained anomalies in the 9/11 narrative, this elevator shaft theory is ridiculous. And surely it is just idle, noise-filling fluff. Something to sound vaguely intelligible to the general public. Because five minutes of research will show that the WTC Towers' elevators and shafts were not stacked vertically one on top of the other. "Instead of building enough elevators to move everybody from the ground floor to their destination, (the designers) decided to split the trip to the upper floors between multiple elevators. If people wanted to get from the ground to the top floor, they would need to jump from elevator to elevator, in the same way you might switch cars on a subway system."

So this means that the fireballs from the impact of the airplanes, to account for the damage to the Towers' lobbies in the way the official story tells us, would have had to travel down the first elevator shaft that was connected to the impact floor, exit the doors at that shaft's terminus, amble down the hall, re-enter the next shaft, travel down to that shaft's terminus, exit the doors and repeat this leapfrogging pattern a number of times to find their way down to said lobby. An absurd narrative that defenders of the official story perhaps just throw out once again in an attempt to sound informed and intelligible, hoping that no one actually looks into the veracity of what they are saying. For it is clear that many of them have not spent even the most cursory time investigating the data, and considering their own logic. (Note: If you view the diagram of the elevator shafts on the above website, you will see that there is one shaft that goes from bottom to top. But surely no one is arguing that one single shaft could have caused the widespread destruction scattered throughout the whole lobby.)

Further evidence that supports early eyewitness testimony and reports of massive underground explosions taking place before the onset of the Towers' collapse can also be found in the recorded seismic activity in and around Manhattan on the morning of 9/11. A comprehensive analysis of this seismic activity can be found in Volume 3 of this online scientific journal.

Despite all this strong, compelling evidence of massive underground explosions that supports the theory of controlled demolition, there was no mention, nor discussion of these underground explosions in any of the 'official' reports or investigations. Why? There were eyewitness reports, seismic recordings, and unmistakable video evidence showing massive underground explosions and huge puffs of smoke ascending from the base of both the towers just before they started to collapse. Yet no official mention, nor investigation, was made of the evidence detailing these explosions and their possible relationship to the onset and behavior of the collapse of the Towers. Why?

back to topcontinue reading »