Diesel fuel is essentially like jet fuel, both are forms of kerosene, and the adiabatic flame temperature of kerosene is 3,801 F. Here is the reference table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_flame_temperature When the Germans were trying to develop the turbojet engine, burning kerosene, they were having trouble with the combustion melting the steel turbine blades. Ever since then, we have had the problem of high turbine inlet temperature. Getting the wrong flame temperature is a characteristic error of the conspiracy mentality.
It may surprise you to think that iron may remain molten if it is insulated by more iron, at least for a period of time. And if the upper stories are crashing through the lower stories, it is reasonable to expect the bottom level of the upper stories to appear at the bottom of the rubble.
The survival of the pilot's license is an expectable occurrence with a massive event. Not every tiny piece of the plane's cargo would necessarily be consumed, when there was likely to be strong air motions within the building during the process of the collision, and the airplane was being torn apart by the building support columns. Nature is not a perfectionist.
Do you have any idea what thermite consists of? It is fine aluminum powder and iron oxide. Exactly the kind of result after a massive combustion event involving the melting and burning of aluminum and the burning of hot iron (a component of sparklers). There would also be aluminum oxide and melted iron. Chemically, there is no way to distinguish the reaction products of thermite with the burning that happened in the Twin Towers. It is exactly this kind of ignorance of combustion chemistry that impeaches the position of the Engineers for 9/11. I am increasingly convinced that no one took into account the presence of aluminum combustion.
Undoubtedly, the Pentagon has a multitude of cameras for surveillance purposes. Explain to me why on Earth they would show any footage that would reveal the location of the camera? That would be a secret, for which the public would NOT have a need to know. The DoD would be the only party that needed to know.
In the Pennsylvania crash, it is not uncommon for such high-speed crashes to result in hardly anything left. The recent crash of a B-52 at Edwards AFB had that result.
Building 7 proves or disproves nothing. One credible analysis put the cause as the thermal expansion of floor beams after a prolonged fire in the building core, which ultimately pushed them out of the mounting brackets attaching them to the support columns. It did seem to have the character of the upper stories collapsing as they fell into the bottom story, so it was not the same kind of collapse as the Twin Towers.
Your cavalier use of the phrase "engineering impossibility" makes me think you are no engineer, and a poor judge of possibility.
They are both strains of kerosene. The heating value does not differ significantly. The M-1 tank's turbine engine was touted for its ability to use a variety of fuels, jet fuel and Diesel alike. You are the one who is choking on the independent data. Where did you get your flame temperature? I was discussing this with a person once who referred to jet engine combustion temperature---but they had no awareness of the fact that jet engines are designed to run on a lean fuel mixture SPECIFICALLY TO LOWER THE FLAME TEMPERATURE so as not to burn out the turbine blades. Did i mention that the WW2 German engineers developing turbojet engines were troubled by melting their steel turbine blades?
I have listened to plenty of arguments. And noted plenty of misunderstandings. I have long thought on my own ideas and take them seriously. As I said, I deliberately avoided reading any government reports in order to keep a detached view. Engineers for 9/11 have preconceptions in mind that I don't agree with. Why are they to be believed and not the other majority view? Because they feed your bias?
And nobody talks about the potential of burning aluminum.
Diesel fuel is essentially like jet fuel, both are forms of kerosene, and the adiabatic flame temperature of kerosene is 3,801 F. Here is the reference table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_flame_temperature When the Germans were trying to develop the turbojet engine, burning kerosene, they were having trouble with the combustion melting the steel turbine blades. Ever since then, we have had the problem of high turbine inlet temperature. Getting the wrong flame temperature is a characteristic error of the conspiracy mentality.
It may surprise you to think that iron may remain molten if it is insulated by more iron, at least for a period of time. And if the upper stories are crashing through the lower stories, it is reasonable to expect the bottom level of the upper stories to appear at the bottom of the rubble.
The survival of the pilot's license is an expectable occurrence with a massive event. Not every tiny piece of the plane's cargo would necessarily be consumed, when there was likely to be strong air motions within the building during the process of the collision, and the airplane was being torn apart by the building support columns. Nature is not a perfectionist.
Do you have any idea what thermite consists of? It is fine aluminum powder and iron oxide. Exactly the kind of result after a massive combustion event involving the melting and burning of aluminum and the burning of hot iron (a component of sparklers). There would also be aluminum oxide and melted iron. Chemically, there is no way to distinguish the reaction products of thermite with the burning that happened in the Twin Towers. It is exactly this kind of ignorance of combustion chemistry that impeaches the position of the Engineers for 9/11. I am increasingly convinced that no one took into account the presence of aluminum combustion.
Undoubtedly, the Pentagon has a multitude of cameras for surveillance purposes. Explain to me why on Earth they would show any footage that would reveal the location of the camera? That would be a secret, for which the public would NOT have a need to know. The DoD would be the only party that needed to know.
In the Pennsylvania crash, it is not uncommon for such high-speed crashes to result in hardly anything left. The recent crash of a B-52 at Edwards AFB had that result.
Building 7 proves or disproves nothing. One credible analysis put the cause as the thermal expansion of floor beams after a prolonged fire in the building core, which ultimately pushed them out of the mounting brackets attaching them to the support columns. It did seem to have the character of the upper stories collapsing as they fell into the bottom story, so it was not the same kind of collapse as the Twin Towers.
Your cavalier use of the phrase "engineering impossibility" makes me think you are no engineer, and a poor judge of possibility.
They are both strains of kerosene. The heating value does not differ significantly. The M-1 tank's turbine engine was touted for its ability to use a variety of fuels, jet fuel and Diesel alike. You are the one who is choking on the independent data. Where did you get your flame temperature? I was discussing this with a person once who referred to jet engine combustion temperature---but they had no awareness of the fact that jet engines are designed to run on a lean fuel mixture SPECIFICALLY TO LOWER THE FLAME TEMPERATURE so as not to burn out the turbine blades. Did i mention that the WW2 German engineers developing turbojet engines were troubled by melting their steel turbine blades?
I have listened to plenty of arguments. And noted plenty of misunderstandings. I have long thought on my own ideas and take them seriously. As I said, I deliberately avoided reading any government reports in order to keep a detached view. Engineers for 9/11 have preconceptions in mind that I don't agree with. Why are they to be believed and not the other majority view? Because they feed your bias?
And nobody talks about the potential of burning aluminum.