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:
What are you trying to say? Of course fire is a chemical reaction. That is grade school chemistry and I never implied otherwise.
My point was that it is easy to produce molten aluminum with fire from hydrocarbon fuel. My further point is that all liquids evaporate below the boiling point (or puddles would never dry up). And evaporated aluminum in the midst of a fire environment will combust. (When it is done on a big time basis, we call that a solid fuel rocket.) Gases are notorious for mixing thoroughly (but thorough mixing has never been required to burn solids like wood or coal, so I think your principle needs some qualification). Steel framed buildings subject to a fire environment that includes burning aluminum, will produce the same combustion products as a thermite reaction, because it is all the same chemistry. Since you were not aware that aluminum (an element) burns, I can't presume that you much understand chemistry, but what I am saying is true. Launch vehicles use it all the time.