I made this comment to a post earlier today, but I thought it was worth its own post. I can't believe I had never looked this up before. Am I missing something? A jet engine is OPTIMIZED to burn jet fuel the most efficiently possible. Jet fuel burning in a building fire is NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO REACH THAT TEMPERATURE! (and even that would not melt steel!) This discrepancy, if as simple as it appears to be, should have been broadcast loud and far long ago. Perhaps this simple fact, if indeed as simple as it seems to be, so clearly indicates the official 9/11 narrative absolutely can't be true, is the reason it seems to have been buried all these years. Please correct me if this is not as simple as it seems.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (103)
sorted by:
Strictly speaking it can, but somehow doubt that pure oxygen was being added to the burn....
Using air(21% oxygen) the adiabatic(burn so efficient there is zero heat transfer) flame temperature of jet-fuel is 1.900-2.000C.
Adiabatic efficiency isn't what they are going for in a jet engine as that would likely reduce trust but afaik finding the sweet-spot between adiabatic(minimal waste heat transferred to parts of engine) temperature and maximum gas expansion by way of deflagration is, adding pure oxygen to the fuel can however up the temperature to more than 2.700 C.
That said the whole jet-fuel burn temperature is kind of a wild goose chase that distracts from what actually happened(in the eyes of media, those that listen to it and officialdom in general it is already established in their heads that the jet-fuel DID burn hot enough for long enough to weaken the steel parts of the towers enough to cause the collapse), trying to disprove the 'established thought' inertia is an exercise in futility.
It is always harder(damned near impossible) to disprove something that has has already been 'proven' as it requires making a shitload of people unlearn what they already 'know'(look it up, unlearning takes 3-6 times the amount of repetitions(or energy/effort) it took to learn it)
A better approach is to expose new information that sneaks around the notions already set in peoples brains(explosives, construction, access to the buildings, financial movements connected to the towers in preceding months and year), ripping the covers of a sleeping teenager will invariably see the kid withdraw deeper under them, now giving the same teenager a reason to wake up because you are doing or presenting something that isn't overtly trying to rip the covers of and instead peaks interest and curiosity, now that is a WAY more efficient way to go about it...........
People have to wake themselves, forcing it will only be met with resistance and is a lost cause(there is more depth and truth to the 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink it' adage than people think....................)
Flame temperature in a jet engine is irrelevant to this question. The early jet engines suffered from the melting of steel turbine blades, so the problem was how to burn the fuel resulting in a lower turbine inlet temperature, and to make turbine blades out of materials that had a higher melting point than steel. No problem with jet fuel melting steel. It has about the same flame temperature as coke, and we use that in blast furnaces to make molten iron.
Structural steel loses 70% of its strength at 600 C, and worse above that. End of story.
There were hundreds of thousands of tons of steel. A small experimental burn represents nothing. Heating 2-inch thick steel enough for a structural collapse would require more energy than 50 full jets could ever contain.
What small experimental burn? What is your point? What makes you so expert on whether an "experimental burn" means anything?
"Small experimental burns" are the kind of experiments some people do(or simulate) before wrongly supposing the same heat concentration can be achieved on a gigantic steel structure.
Kinda my point(got a bit lost in the rest of the words though), it's technically possible so trying to make an argument against it not happening in this case is an effort best spent elsewhere...