We know a missile brought the aircraft [TWA800] down.

VKMHVM2 · 06-02-2008, 12:20 PM

We know a missile brought the aircraft [TWA800] down.

And I asked Captain Mundo, 'You're telling us here that you evacuated that tank. Why was it not filled in the next flight?' He said because instead of going as far as Athens, they were only only going as far as Paris, and they didn't need it.

Consequently we know that tank was empty. Well that means it had a thimble-full of kerosene or the equivalent vapor. This is a huge tank; much bigger than this room - literally. And there's no way that you can ignite a thimble-full of kerosene and blow off the left wing of the strongest airplane ever built.

More info on TWA 800 HERE

eagleclaw · 06-02-2008, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VKMHVM2

We know a missile brought the aircraft [TWA800] down.

And I asked Captain Mundo, 'You're telling us here that you evacuated that tank. Why was it not filled in the next flight?' He said because instead of going as far as Athens, they were only only going as far as Paris, and they didn't need it.

Consequently we know that tank was empty. Well that means it had a thimble-full of kerosene or the equivalent vapor. This is a huge tank; much bigger than this room - literally. And there's no way that you can ignite a thimble-full of kerosene and blow off the left wing of the strongest airplane ever built.

More info on TWA 800 HERE

This cannot be true. That kerosene was powerful enough to melt all that steel in the WTC it damn well is strong enough to tear wings off airplanes!!!!

How is it going V?

VKMHVM2 · 06-02-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eagleclaw

This cannot be true. That kerosene was powerful enough to melt all that steel in the WTC it damn well is strong enough to tear wings off airplanes!!!!

How is it going V?

Hi Eagleclaw!

Long time, no see!

You make a very good point and it's hard to argue against it. But on the other hand, maybe it's possible Al Qaeda/Iraq/Iran fired the missile and the Clinton administration covered it up for them.

eagleclaw · 06-02-2008, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VKMHVM2

Hi Eagleclaw!

Long time, no see!

You make a very good point and it's hard to argue against it. But on the other hand, maybe it's possible Al Qaeda/Iraq/Iran fired the missile and the Clinton administration covered it up for them.

And I always wondered why that same jet fuel didn't cause a total global collapse of the Pentagon?

Did they use a different type of jet fuel on flight 77?

Duvidoo · 06-02-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eagleclaw

And I always wondered why that same jet fuel didn't cause a total global collapse of the Pentagon?

Did they use a different type of jet fuel on flight 77?

I don't think Larry Silverstein had any vested interest in the Pentagon.

Titanium Cat · 06-02-2008, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eagleclaw

And I always wondered why that same jet fuel didn't cause a total global collapse of the Pentagon?

Did they use a different type of jet fuel on flight 77?

Holy fuck, man that is a total wonder isn't it!

Let's see, the footprint of the Pentagon (not including its central courtyard) is almost 1.3 million square feet. It has five floors and is 77 feet tall.

The WTC towers covered 43,264 square feet (just 3.4% of the Pentagon) and were 110 stories reaching 1362|1368 feet in height.

I wonder which buildings had a dramatically greater vertical load?

I wonder which buildings were far more vulnerable to an explosive attack and weakening due to fire?

Hmmmmmm... nope, I don't wonder at all.

eagleclaw · 06-02-2008, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titanium Cat

Holy fuck, man that is a total wonder isn't it!

Let's see, the footprint of the Pentagon (not including its central courtyard) is almost 1.3 million square feet. It has five floors and is 77 feet tall.

The WTC towers covered 43,264 square feet (just 3.4% of the Pentagon) and were 110 stories reaching 1362|1368 feet in height.

I wonder which buildings had a dramatically greater vertical load?

I wonder which buildings were far more vulnerable to an explosive attack and weakening due to fire?

Hmmmmmm... nope, I don't wonder at all.

So Einstien, what did happen to all that jet fuel?

If there was enough left over from the initial explosion at the WTC to cause all that steel to melt thereby causing those massive towers to fall in their own footprint just then where did all the jet fuel from the Pentagon end up?

Titanium Cat · 06-02-2008, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eagleclaw

So Einstien, what did happen to all that jet fuel?

If there was enough left over from the initial explosion at the WTC to cause all that steel to melt thereby causing those massive towers to fall in their own footprint just then where did all the jet fuel from the Pentagon end up?

You do understand that NIST doesn't say that the jet fuel melted all that steel to cause the towers to collapse don't you?

The part of the Pentagon that was hit partially collapsed. You really don't think a building as wide as the Pentagon would completely collapse from a strike that damaged on a small portion of it do you?

Duvidoo · 06-02-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titanium Cat

You do understand that NIST doesn't say that the jet fuel melted all that steel to cause the towers to collapse don't you?

The part of the Pentagon that was hit partially collapsed. You really don't think a building as wide as the Pentagon would completely collapse from a strike that damaged on a small portion of it do you?

With Hani the Marksman (PBUH) at the tiller I'm shocked that entire sector of DC wasn't leveled. There was nothing holding that boy back on 9/11. He became the veritable Eighth Wonder of the World when he made that immaculate approach.

Ptech · 06-02-2008, 03:33 PM

TWA 800 was either an accident--friendly fire from some Navy vessel, or intentional.

Someday maybe somebody will write a book about the passengers onboard that flight.

It might be that they just had to take out a certain passenger, and the rest were collateral damage?

06-02-2008, 12:20 PM	#1 (permalink)
VKMHVM2 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 2,843 My Mood: Thanks: 92 Thanked 71 Times in 54 Posts	We know a missile brought the aircraft [TWA800] down. We know a missile brought the aircraft [TWA800] down. And I asked Captain Mundo, 'You're telling us here that you evacuated that tank. Why was it not filled in the next flight?' He said because instead of going as far as Athens, they were only only going as far as Paris, and they didn't need it. Consequently we know that tank was empty. Well that means it had a thimble-full of kerosene or the equivalent vapor. This is a huge tank; much bigger than this room - literally. And there's no way that you can ignite a thimble-full of kerosene and blow off the left wing of the strongest airplane ever built. More info on TWA 800 HERE __________________ It's All Here! Dr. Albert Pastore: An Independent Investigation of 9-11 and the War on Terrorism "Missing Links" - the 911 film THEY do NOT want you to see!
	Top

06-02-2008, 03:33 PM	#10 (permalink)
Ptech Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Fort Pierce FL Posts: 1,304 Thanks: 35 Thanked 24 Times in 22 Posts	TWA 800 was either an accident--friendly fire from some Navy vessel, or intentional. Someday maybe somebody will write a book about the passengers onboard that flight. It might be that they just had to take out a certain passenger, and the rest were collateral damage?
	Top

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode