13-08-2013, 11:33 PM
Tony Szamboli at 329 has a pertinent observation:
We know each aircraft that hit the towers had 10,000 gallons on them when they left Boston for their trips to the West Coast. The 767-200ER aircraft had a 7,700 mile range and would have only been fueled to their full 24,000 gallon capacity for that range.
It is likely that about half of the fuel or about 5,000 gallons made it into the towers with the other half going up in the exterior fireballs. Now if one takes 5,000 gallons and spreads it over one of the acre size floors of a twin tower they will have a 3/16" thickness. Over two floors 3/32" thickness and over three floors 3/64" thickness. NIST believes the fuel burned up quickly due to being aerosolized and a thin film. I agree with that contention.
Quod erat demonstratum the official explanation fails.
Fire did not produce the necessary temperature to weaken the steel.
Charges taking out 98, then 99, 100, 101 is a scenario consistent with observed events.
Integral to the deep political understaning of 9/11 is the predetermined rush to war in two theaters aligned with the ends of the powers
as well as the rip tide of unravelling of constitutional protections for rights secured against monarchic abuse of power.
The official explanation of 9/11, just as that of the JFK Assassination, is unable to account for either observations or ends.
The role of Allen Dulles/Dick Cheney as the lightning rod for the concept of a Gladio operation is central to the event.
Now comes the filibuster to quibble, retreat behind a rodeo barrier of amateurness, emerge with pronunciamentos and Sancho Panza
The towers didn't "fall"--they were blown down. Why, how, unfolding now.
Charges set by a small set
Who refuse to see the larger picture
That little Dulles shouting down Lifton: Nothing! You can't say it moves back!
Dick and Jane, See Fire Burn! See Building Fall!
In each and both, contempt for conspiracy, echoed in these pages: over and over and over
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5063[/ATTACH]
We know each aircraft that hit the towers had 10,000 gallons on them when they left Boston for their trips to the West Coast. The 767-200ER aircraft had a 7,700 mile range and would have only been fueled to their full 24,000 gallon capacity for that range.
It is likely that about half of the fuel or about 5,000 gallons made it into the towers with the other half going up in the exterior fireballs. Now if one takes 5,000 gallons and spreads it over one of the acre size floors of a twin tower they will have a 3/16" thickness. Over two floors 3/32" thickness and over three floors 3/64" thickness. NIST believes the fuel burned up quickly due to being aerosolized and a thin film. I agree with that contention.
Quod erat demonstratum the official explanation fails.
Fire did not produce the necessary temperature to weaken the steel.
Charges taking out 98, then 99, 100, 101 is a scenario consistent with observed events.
Integral to the deep political understaning of 9/11 is the predetermined rush to war in two theaters aligned with the ends of the powers
as well as the rip tide of unravelling of constitutional protections for rights secured against monarchic abuse of power.
The official explanation of 9/11, just as that of the JFK Assassination, is unable to account for either observations or ends.
The role of Allen Dulles/Dick Cheney as the lightning rod for the concept of a Gladio operation is central to the event.
Now comes the filibuster to quibble, retreat behind a rodeo barrier of amateurness, emerge with pronunciamentos and Sancho Panza
The towers didn't "fall"--they were blown down. Why, how, unfolding now.
Charges set by a small set
Who refuse to see the larger picture
That little Dulles shouting down Lifton: Nothing! You can't say it moves back!
Dick and Jane, See Fire Burn! See Building Fall!
In each and both, contempt for conspiracy, echoed in these pages: over and over and over
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5063[/ATTACH]