So have you shown that the fires were below the 78th floor.....have you Verm.....I mean that was one of the questions....your still kinda saying that the fuel poured down the shaft.(which i disagree).
So please show evidence that any of this fuel progressed below the 78th floor...your saying it happened...but not showing this to be the case.
Why would you do this.....the only reason i can think of is you actually believe this to be the case out of your common sense...or you believe blindly what gets said....or your only here to confuse the issues....Now i for one...do not believe it was all just atomized fuel...nice effort though....
5.7.3 Amount of jet fuel burned within the WTC towers
According to the FEMA BPA, aircraft fuel capacity was 23,980 gallons; at time of impact, each jet had
an estimated 10,000 gallons of fuel on board. "Calculations indicate that between 1000 and 3000
gallons of jet fuel were likely consumed" in fireballs for each tower. The remainder flowed away from
the structures, or burned within them. Assuming half flowed away, then approximately 4000 gallons
remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed. The jet Fuel would have been
consumed within the first few minutes. 
The NIST Executive Summary states "About 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were sprayed into multiple
stories" The more detailed account states: "Upon aircraft impact, a significant fraction of 10,000
gallons of jet fuel ignited within the building." 
Apparently struggling for every gallon to be burned within the towers, NISTfinally concedes that
somewhat less than 10,000 gallons of fuel actually burned in each tower: "The timing and appearance of
the fireballs indicated they were ignited within the building. A calculation based on the oxygen
contained within the building on the floors into which the fuel tanks entered indicated that up to 15% of
the available jet fuel could have burned inside the building in the immediate event...If roughly another
15-20 % of the jet fuel burned outside the building, as in WTC2, then about two thirds of the jet fuel
remained inside the building to burn later or just flow away from the fire zones." 
With WTC 2; we find classic NIST-ese. Is it a highly detailed description of how much fuel burned in
the building, or obfuscation? 
Mete Sozen, the Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of StructuralEngineering in Purdue's School of Civil
Engineering, and lead investigator for the Purdue study, stated "the ensuing fire fed by an estimated
10,000 gallons of jet fuel". 
The figures from the first official investigation, by FEMA, are more in line with figures given on the
Discovery Channel, noted earlier by Dave McGowan. The tendency is that in later investigations, the
estimated amount of fuel burned inside the buildings escalates.
I think you should go read here...as eveyone should it is well presented and quite neutral in many aspects...but it does ask hard questions.
good 9/11 stuff
okay but lets look...IS purdue biased...
Why have many of the same people headed the study of the Oklahoma City Murrah building bombing,
as well as the FEMA and NIST WTC collapse studies? Why have many of the same people been
responsible for writing the ASCE, FEMA, and NIST reports? Why did the engineers who signed off on
the NIST report also sign off on the Silverstein report, even though those two studies reached
contradictory conclusions regarding collapse mechanism?
Remember that in 2006 the Bush administration doubled the budget of the National Science
Foundation to $6.02 billion. Was the NSF funded Purdue Study a payback?
How can there so much uncertainty about the mechanism of the collapse, but yet such certainty of the
underlying “cause” of the collapse, i.e., aircraft impact and fire?
NIST was charged with determining how the towers “collapsed”, but themselveshave admitted that they
do not know how global collapse ensued. Why has this been accepted?
as per above link.
edit on 033131p://f31Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)