Flight 175, at impact with WTC 2 caused an explosion.

What is seen is an explosion so completely surrounding the fuel load that it squeezes into the turbulence wake of the aircraft making a tongue of flame shoot out in the opposite direction of the fuel travel in a sphere/tube of expanding pulverized concrete.

If the quantity of explosive to create what we see, were only in the aircraft, it would probably be traveling more in one direction as a gas jets escaping out several floors in random directions rather than causing a surrounding of the fuel explosion, at the impact points with a cloud of concrete.

Here is a possible explanation of the size and uniformity of the explosion surrounding the fuel.

The C4 in the floors was initiated by a bomb n the plane.. Notice the light color and fine quality of the dust. The floors were of lightwieght concrete (Foam concrete) and the steel thicker than the FEMA report. There were large beams under the floors connecting the columns that joined the perimeter steel structure to the interior box columns that surrounded the concrete core.

As far as I know nothing in a 500 MPH airplane crash will set off plastic explosives. 20,000 fps IS required. All high explosives commonly available are quite stable these days and specific proximal effect of pressures generated by explosions of 20,000 FPS are required. The jet is traveling at perhaps 750 FPS. A smaller charge, about enough to detonate high explosives within the diameter of the explosion we see, but back, inside the building, where explosives might be located in the plane debri shielded, on a delay, would initiate the floor panel sections involved, displacing the fuel load backwards. Video does not show an explosion until the plane is completely inside the building.

Consider: If you were going to build a building with explosive floors would you make the explosive in each powerful enough to reach the surrounding floors and set them off? No, there is no need and it would add undue risk.

NOTE: Within this theory and the explosion at impact of flight 175 there is a minor confirmation of logic.

It is seen in the images that pulverized concrete is thrown upward and outward in many photos and that this explosive action continues to the ground at the rate of freefall. The exploding tower does so uniformly meaning distribution and position are OPTIMIZED.

An explanation is that each floor had its own network of explosives under the foam concrete. If the detonation of one floor WAS adequate to initiate the floor above and below, and the plane had a bomb in it, the plane would have started a chain reaction. It did not, but still the size of the explosion was substantial, more so than a bomb in the plane could cause alone WITHOUT blowing a large gas jet out the side of the building. Consider: If a bomb in a plane went off between floors and the windows present adequate pressure release, then that bomb will not seriously damage adjacent floors, it would blow out the side all around the building between floors. Interior walls were very light.

The impact explosion is limited to the one side of the building and not expressed as pressure between floors, it IS floors. Fuel DID flow and explode outside the other side of the building Why didn't the same type explosions occur on the right side?

Floor panels were separated by the large steel beams connecting the concrete core to the perimeter. We see perhaps 5 panels wide detonating.

Thanks to http://letsroll911.org for pointing out this explosion at impact of Flight 175. .

The expanding pulverized concrete is outrunning the fuel fire in the opposite direction of the crafts travel. How can this be anything but an explosion?

In order to get the pressure to break concrete, kerosene would have to be contained. Fuels will not detonate unless they are enclosed, generally, unless you have uniform vapor cloud that is very fine. Collisions do create vapor clouds but with the down wards aspect of the plane and the division of its fuel load by different floors would tend to spread the fuel around inside different areas/floors of the building with the initial velocity rather than create a lot of fine vapor. Without detonation you don't have much force that can be considered in concrete pulverization. Even if your fuel is partially vaporized, this structure won't hold any pressure and if it developed to any degree the windows of the impact stories, around the building would shatter.

We see a large fuel burn being outrun by explosively expanding cloud of pulverized concrete. Terrorists would put bombs on planes but having this size of explosion does not fit.

Plane impacts.

Some consider these to be inaccurate, but that is since the "No Plane Theory" was enacted as a cointelpro psyops to confuse, diffuse and mislead members of the 9-11 truth movement.

The diagrams and animation seems fairly accurate. It is unknown if the creator of this knew of the concrete core, most likely the did not because there is no heavy boundary to the core lines. The right engine of flight 11 went all the way through the core and bounced off the inside of the south perimeter walls. There was some fire immediately in that location as can be seen by images of WTC 1 on the south side.

Flight 175 was travelling at a fairly steep downwards angle compared to flight 11 at impact. This animation is the only partly correct. The left engine of flight 175 hit the south east corner of the concrete core and continued out the east face about 2/3 towards the north east corner of WTC 2. There it bounced off the inside of the perimeter walls. Video of the fireball shows a larger puff of concrete dust coming out between the perimeter columns perhaps 2-3 floors below the impact level.

Back To The Scenario

The FEMA Deception
The Psyops, Disinfo & Misinformation
The Twin Towers Design & Construction
The Demolition

Feedback to; argus1@earthlink.net