"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...
(B2431) wrote in news:20040112005015.26088.00002571
@mb-m15.aol.com:
From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" am
Date: 1/11/2004 9:27 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

No, there would be a great deal of fuel remaining. Remember that
the "explosion" would rob itself of Oxygen.

Looking at the video of the south tower impact, doesn't the huge
fireball outside the building seem to suggest that much, if not
most, of the fuel burned up on the outside?



Regards...

That fireball was nothing compared to the fireball that would have
been generated if all the fuel burned at once.

Bear in mind the fuel inside burned for a long time.

Well, according to sources I've read most of the fuel burnt up
or evaporated in less than a minute. A few minutes at most.

To me it seems that the "office fire" theory leaves enough
unanswered questions to warrant deeper studies. Not at least because
there has been serious fires in high raised steel buildings before
and none has ever caused any collapse.

And how many of those fires were caused by the violent introduction of
thousands of gallons of flaming jet fuel? And while you're looking that up,
please tell us how many of the other building fires were in buildings built
like the Twin Towers?