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:
During the original development of jet engines, the steel turbine blades would wear out from melting. This prompted two directions of development: (1) lean combustion (diluting the fully-burned fuel with cooling air) and (2) superalloys that melted at higher temperatures than steel.
The adiabatic flame temperature of kerosene in air is 2,093 C. This is easily attained in an enclosed environment (captured infrared radiation) and no air dilution. Moreover, at these temperatures, the aluminum airframe would melt and evaporate. (It doesn't need to boil. Water evaporates at temperatures lower than boiling.) Aluminum vapor is flammable and burns (with oxygen) at an adiabatic flame temperature of 3,732 C. Burning in air would tend to lower this a bit, maybe by 900 C.) (Aluminum is the major fuel constituent of large solid rocket motors, as used on the Space Shuttle or Space Launch System).
These ARE simple facts, but tend to be lost in the general unfamiliarity of the subject. Hardly anyone remarks on the possibility of the airplane's aluminum contributing to the fire environment, and leaving behind aluminum oxide ash.
What is your take on the Bldg 7 collapse?
The only analysis I have seen involved the presence of an internal fire that pre-gutted the building (initial internal collapse) and loosened up the beam-column connections, so the whole thing unzipped once it got started.
There is a basis for thinking a nearby seismic shock could have gotten the ball rolling. I saw a recent video clip from either Syria or Gaza that happened to capture the moments when a bomb or missile hit the footing of a multi-story building, and the shock caused the building to have a pancake collapse.
Can there be a better explanation? Possibly. Probably. But, unlike a paranoid person, I am used to seeing accidents in the world that have slender or no explanations. Just because we live in the world doesn't mean we know everything. Or that we ever will know everything.