Fort Fairfield Journal About Us Contact Us Advertising Rates Subscribe Distribution Bible Reference Our Library
From the Editor
By: David Deschesne
Editor/Publisher, Fort Fairfield Journal
My editorials on the World Trade Towers and 9/11 over the past couple of editions of Fort Fairfield Journal (see links, below) have generated a quite a bit of conversation—certainly a lot more than when I wrote on those subjects in the past. I never intended to spend this much space on the subject; I thought since I was stating facts, there should be no discussion, but there were a few points in last edition that weren’t quite clear that I now have clarification on, so I’ll share with you what I’ve learned.
A friend of mine, Larry, contacted me regarding the burn temperature of jet-grade kerosene, which I wasn’t sure of before. He was much more amiable to me than James was, so I was able to not only learn a few things, but also have a further discussion on 9/11 with him.
Larry works on aircraft engines for a living and knows much more about them than I do. In my last editorial I wasn’t sure what the temperature of kerosene burning in a jet engine combustion chamber was and suggested it might get hot enough to melt steel. Larry informed me that it gets very close. He said the temperature of jet grade kerosene inside the jet engine combustion chambers he works on burns at 2,057° F. Since (carbon) steel begins to melt at 2,066° F and is completely molten at 2,400, it is plausible that the structural integrity of carbon steel (that is steel with 2.1% carbon by weight) is compromised when inside a jet engine combustion chamber and is perilously close to melting.
Now, Larry added that there are a few conditions that have to be met inside that combustion chamber for kerosene to reach those temperatures. First, the engine has to be running at full throttle. Second, the fuel has to be properly “atomized.” Let me explain atomizing fuel. Kerosene- like fuel oil in a furnace, or diesel fuel in an engine - is not just dribbled or dumped into the combustion chamber and lit on fire; it has to be atomized, first. When you spray window cleaner in the “spray” position, you will notice the cleaner squirts out into the air in a mist, rather than a stream. It is this mist that resembles the atomizing of jet fuel as it enters the combustion chamber. Larry said there are very specific parameters to this atomizing process in order to get the fuel to burn at optimum efficiency.
Third, the pressure inside the combustion chamber of the jet engine needs to be 150 psi (pounds per square inch). This pressure causes the fuel to burn more efficiently and through things called venturies and nozzles, thrust is produced.
I asked Larry if a jet engine burning under those conditions—full throttle, optimally atomized fuel, 150 psi—produces any smoke. He said if the engine is working correctly, under those conditions there will be no smoke at all.
That was when we discussed the World Trade Towers. I asked him if the conditions inside the Trade Towers on 9/11 could have produced properly atomized fuel. He said, no, the fuel would have simply been dumped all over the floors and walls (what fuel was left, most exploded in a fireball outside the buildings when the respective planes impacted.)
Since the buildings were not built to be airtight and the gaping airplane holes in the sides of them were just created, it was merely rhetorical to ask if the pressure inside those buildings, where the fires were burning, was able to approach 150 psi. Obviously, that was impossible.
So, we have two buildings the government, mainstream media and James, said had jet fuel burning hot enough to melt steel and that was what caused them to collapse. The facts show the only way for jet grade kerosene to even approach the melting point of steel is to be inside a combustion chamber at full throttle, properly atomized and burning at 150 psi. None of those conditions were met in the poorly burning, oxygen starved open-air fires that we witnessed in both of the trade towers. None.
I don’t know what I can do to convince people that from the human perspective, water is wet, the sun is hot, ice is cold and the World Trade Tower fires did not burn hot enough to melt steel—or even structurally weaken it. The North tower already withstood a much hotter and longer burning fire in 1976 and it did not collapse.
Another friend of mine, Richard, said he enjoys reading the Fort Fairfield Journal even if he doesn’t agree with everything I write. He said it’s good that I am able to express my opinions and more people should do the same.
I reminded Richard that the discussions on the World Trade towers in this series of editorials are not comprised of my opinion, they are comprised of facts. For example, it is not my opinion that steel’s lowest melting point is 2,066° F. It is not my opinion jet fuel burns at maximum temperature inside a combustion chamber, properly atomized, under 150 psi, at 2,057° F. It is not my opinion that an efficiently burning fire produces little or no smoke; while an oxygen-starved fire produces a lot of smoke. It is further not my opinion that World Trade Tower North burned in 1976 with a much hotter and longer burning fire than on 9/11 and did not collapse. It is not my opinion that the Trade Towers were built to withstand airplane impacts by using a system of massive vertically oriented steel columns in their cores.
None of the above is my opinion, but the government and mainstream media has taught you all that anybody who questions their “official” story is somehow a conspiracy theorist and is merely giving opinions. Facts are not opinions; facts are facts.
Without getting into the symmetrical nature of the fall of both of those buildings, or Galileo’s Law of Falling objects (yet), and simply looking at the temperature of the burning fires to determine if the buildings could have fallen as the government and its mainstream media mouthpieces have successfully sold to the vast majority of Americans, one who has an open mind will surely conclude that the government and its associates in the mainstream media are absolutely lying to us.
The government lying? The mainstream media lying? Wow, what a bold concept. But, I guess it’s easier to attack someone like me who is simply asking you to look at all the facts, shut that stupid television off and do a little thinking for yourself.
Past editorials in this series